We are not Adobe scumbags. We actually care about your input.
Please share your ideas:
👉 https://blogs.kde.org/2026/06/20/kde-goals-call-for-submissions/
We are not Adobe scumbags. We actually care about your input.
Please share your ideas:
👉 https://blogs.kde.org/2026/06/20/kde-goals-call-for-submissions/
I don’t think this is a KDE problem, but more the way Linux operates. I looked into this once and it’s basically because Linux considers the operation done when the source file is completely read and committed to the destination, but not actually written yet. I see this same behavior with my USB backup drives where something finishes but then I have to wait a minute or two when actually unmounting the drive. I think there’s a way to change this but I’ve never done it.
P.S. I just want KDE to make activities great again :(
Wow, I’m really glad this topic came up. As a recent convert from Windows, it’s still muscle memory for me to yank out a flash drive as soon as the copy dialog completes. (Yes, I know ejecting a drive first is still the proper thing to do on Windows, but skipping that has not been an issue once in hundreds of cases.)
A simple
syncwould show you when it actually finishes. However, it has system-wide effects. Perhaps KDE could lobby for a similar action to become available that is limited to e.g. a specific process id?I would settle for checked-by-default “sync and wait” option. That way I can choose whether to cause a sync or not.
Often this is the correct pragmatic power user solution in UX design. Trying to solve it by default for everyone is much harder and will ultimately alienate some user.
But when people get bothered by an experience it is much easier for them to find the hidden setting that makes them happy again. It also preserves the existing experience, while allowing for greater customization in the long term.
Once a decent compromise is identified, that’s when it’s time to flip which setting gets to be the default.
My motivation for calling for it to be the default was that it’s safer (in terms of data).
Another UX principle is that of least surprise. I think it’s reasonable to assume that most users will expect the copy to be fully complete when the dialog closes, and that they will be surprised when their files are corrupted. Changing the behavior in the desktop to delay closing the dialog until any copying to removable media is complete should not be a controversial change.
We’re seeing an influx of novice users to Linux. I don’t think we need a bunch “Linux ate my files” incidents if it can be avoided by a simple change, which itself can be easily reversed if you didn’t like it.
Yes this is absolutely how Linux operates, but it’s embarrassing and primitive, and it’s actually decidedly a bug.
I haven’t done much programming for many years, but you used to be able to see if you went a step deeper into the file system operations, whether the file you are copying still has parts in cache.
Just because nobody does it, doesn’t mean it’s not a bug.
There is no sense in showing a progress bar that is wrong anyway.
It’s not a bug, just a difference in prioritization. It makes more sense for a server and less for a desktop with removable devices
How is it not a bug? The info shown is decidedly wrong!
Would it also not be a bug if your weather app shows freezing 8 C° tomorrow when it’s going to be 40 C°?
Because there’s a perfectly understandable explanation, that they only count to 32 because temperatures didn’t get higher than that 30 years ago, so it counts down from zero when it’s above 40, because that’s how we’ve done it for years.
Just because you know why, and it’s a little bit cumbersome to do it correctly doesn’t mean it’s not a bug.
It’s not only a bug, it’s a lazy ass bug.
If it’s lazy then the fix should be easy, right? Send a PR