Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk
From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0!
Message-ID: <814@cbmger.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jan 91 07:39:04 GMT
References: <1991Jan27.105252.7019@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <7662@sugar.hackercorp.com> <56933@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany
Lines: 22

In article <56933@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> skwood@acsu.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes:
>     Multiple trashcans?  What the point of that?  The main concept behind
>the Trashcan is to delete files.  Why do you need more than one?

Because such "half-deleted" files thus remain on the volume they come
from and perhaps will be needed again some day. Remember: The trashcan
is not a full delete, you still have the possibility to recover files
from there! Thus a data disk with many text files on it carries also
the trashcan for letters, a spreadsheet data disk carries the trashcan
for numeric data files. If you would want a single trashcan, you would
have to *move* files from their home disk to the system disk to put it
into the trashcan. And as you want to write to the system partition as
rarely as possible, this would mean more risk for your system files.
Also you would have to make your system partition bigger to hold all
the trashcan files. This conflicts with the politics to make a small,
closed partition for *only* system files. (Well, to avoid this, you
could do an assign for a trashcan: drawer somewhere else, but I prefer
the existing way.)

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk