[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Konqueror (in file manager) doesn't automatically refresh file list and stats.



On Mon, 23 May 2005 01:20, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why not just move .kde somewhere else and see what
> happens. You can always move it back if something goes
> wrong.
> 

Thanks Yitzhak.  
I've thought of doing that, and it's looking like my next step, but I'd hoped 
someone might be able to point me to the actual .rc file and setting, and I'd 
learn something new in the process. :-)
Not to mention trying to avoid the hassle if it messes up my system.

Regards,
Andrew

> --- Andrew Kovacs <mr_k@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I'm using KDE 3.3.2 on Sid, updated every few days
> > or so (on dialup, so I let 
> > it do it's thing overnight :-)  ).
> > The subject line pretty much says it all.  I can't
> > remember if it ever did 
> > automatically refresh in Sid, but it certainly does
> > in Mandrake 10.0, and 
> > I've seen it touted as a feature of Konqueror, so I
> > figure it should work.
> > I've googled on all sorts of combinations of this
> > (plus update, and reload, 
> > etc...) and only come up with a SUSE user with the
> > same problem, and a 
> > complaint about an earlier version on a KDE forum,
> > but no solutions.
> > If I look through all my .kde home settings (various
> > .rc files etc...), I 
> > can't see anything there that might indicate some
> > sort of directory refresh 
> > period, or a true/false for refresh or whatever. 
> > Nor any luck going through 
> > the KDE Control Centre.  :-(
> > 
> > From googling and searching the Debian lists, I've
> > seen a couple of 
> > suggestions for other KDE problems to simply delete
> > .kde and all its 
> > contents, but I'm reluctant to do this as I might
> > render the system unusable, 
> > and I'd lose a lot of settings.  It's my main
> > desktop system now.
> > 
> > Anyone got any ideas?
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for any help/suggestions you might
> > have.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andrew
> > 
> > 



Reply to: