According to the GNOME Nautilus user manual ( http://library.gnome.org/users/user-guide/stable/gosnautilus-550.html.en), a red x by a file means that the user that owns the nautilus process doesn't have read permissions to the file.
So having said that, this could indicate either a bug in GNOME Nautilus or an unclean filesystem. Have you run fsck.ext3 on the affected filesystem (be sure to specify the force check option...I think it is "-f")? On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:45 PM, John Jason Jordan <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:52:05 -0800 > Robert Miesen <[email protected]> dijo: > > >Have you tried running an ls -a command in the affected directory as root? > >If running the command as root reveals the hidden files, it is possible > that > >the directory containing the two troublesome files doesn't have read > >permissions set for non-group members. If that is the case, running chmod > >o+r <yourHomeDir>/Desktop as root should fix the problem. Alternatively, > you > >could either change the group membership of the folder in question (with > the > >-R option enabled if you want to apply group membership changes > recursively) > >or add yourself to the group the folder is a member of. If you choose the > >last option, you'll need to logout and login for your permissions to > become > >effective. > > I became root with su. The ls command as root failed to see any of the > files > that Nautilus showed with an X on them. That includes ls -a, or any other > ls > option. > > Because the files in question had spaces in them I tried typing them with > the > tab auto-completion. But the tab auto-completed only the one file that > didn't > have the X on it in Nautilus. > > The mv and cp commands also failed to see the files. > > There were not just two files. I mentioned two just as examples. My old ~/ > folder had 38 GB of data in it, comprised of many thousands of files. > Nautilus > displayed about one in 15 with an X on it, and in each and every case, the > X > files were invisible to the terminal. The logic behind which files had an X > on > them in Nautilus completely escapes me. In the three files I cited as > examples, > all three were PDFs downloaded from Portland State by me (the old Jaunty > me, > that is). According to Nautilus the Properties tab showed the permissions > as > identical for all three files. WTH? > > I'm beginning to wonder if I have stumbled into a bug in Nautilus. Wait ... > it's not just Nautilus, but the command line as well. Maybe the filesystem? > But > the filesystem is ext3. A bug in ext4 would be credible, but not ext3. > > I know a lot of people use a separate partition for ~/, but I have never > seen > the logic of that for a laptop. I have just one disk. If the disk crashes I > lose everything anyway. And I'm not ordinarily into installing new distros > alongside my main distro. If I wanted to do that I'd use Virtualbox. > > That does remind me that it's about time to do a full system backup, now > that > my migration to Fedora is pretty much finished. > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > -- Luck is believing you are lucky. -- Tennessee Williams _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
