Whats the .local folder for in my Home Directory





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







116















What is the ~/.local folder good for and is it safe to remove the content within this folder?










share|improve this question































    116















    What is the ~/.local folder good for and is it safe to remove the content within this folder?










    share|improve this question



























      116












      116








      116


      26






      What is the ~/.local folder good for and is it safe to remove the content within this folder?










      share|improve this question
















      What is the ~/.local folder good for and is it safe to remove the content within this folder?







      filesystem configuration user-profile






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jun 24 '14 at 22:07









      Florian Diesch

      66.1k16168183




      66.1k16168183










      asked Nov 23 '10 at 13:35









      RolandRoland

      91051111




      91051111






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          114














          This is a recent innovation, followed by Gnome and thus by Ubuntu, to store user-specific data in fixed directories. According to this document, there is




          • a single directory where user data is stored, defaulting to ~/.local/share;

          • a single directory where configuration is stored, defaulting to ~/.config;

          • a single directory which holds non-essiential data files, defaulting to ~/.cache.


          Historically, Unix programs were free to spread their data all over the $HOME directory, putting their data in dot-files (files starting with ".") or subdirectories such as ~/.vimrc and ~/.vim. The new specification is intended to make this behavior more predictable. I suspect this makes backups of application data easier, in addition to giving your home directory a tidier appearance. Not all applications adhere to this standard yet.



          In the .local hierarchy, programs put user information such as emails and calendar events. You could manually remove this data, but then the program would lose its state; unless this is what you intend (e.g. when there is a problem with your configuration), you shouldn't remove or change files in that directory. With .cache you can be more careless as the program should be able to recover - redownload or recompute - all the files if you remove them.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

            – Martin Owens -doctormo-
            Nov 23 '10 at 13:55











          • I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

            – loevborg
            Nov 23 '10 at 14:11








          • 7





            It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

            – Piotr Dobrogost
            Jul 24 '13 at 21:45






          • 3





            I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

            – lumeng.dev
            Sep 4 '15 at 19:58






          • 1





            What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

            – CMCDragonkai
            Jan 6 '17 at 8:23





















          9














          Let me share one of my experiences about the .local directory.
          I also found my disk partition(root partition) which store home directory has no enough space, and after I check those directories' content, I found the .local directory stores above 70G space, then I want to delete it, but fear the deletion could cause my ubuntu system crash. So I searched this question in google, and it directs me here.
          But the previous answers could not solve my problems, I only want two results on my system:




          1. Remove some content in the .local directory, then I could have enough disk space to store my new files;


          2. I don't want my system crash, it means I don't want to directly delete the content from my home .local directory, it's too dangerous!



          Finally, I found the biggest content under the .local directory is here:
          /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash
          It occupies 69G Bytes. I feel it relates to the Trash, so I go to trash:
          trash:///
          and empty the trash,
          Then I found the 69G bytes disk space was freed!!



          So my conclusions:




          1. It's highly risky to delete .local directory directly;


          2. We could safely delete content under /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash by "Empty" trash.







          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

            – machineghost
            Dec 19 '18 at 23:31





















          1














          The .local/ directory is used by some software to keep your preferences (as pointed by @loevborg). This directory is part of the effort to standardize the mess that is the $HOME user. But unfortunately many software has not yet joined this effort, even some gnome software still are spreading your preferences in others directory (see .gnome2, .gconf, .evolution, etc).



          It is not safe to remove the directory. Some apps store important information/config files inside this directory.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 11





            "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

            – Tim Abell
            Jul 25 '12 at 18:39






          • 5





            I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

            – Timo Kluck
            Aug 3 '12 at 10:48












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "89"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f14535%2fwhats-the-local-folder-for-in-my-home-directory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          114














          This is a recent innovation, followed by Gnome and thus by Ubuntu, to store user-specific data in fixed directories. According to this document, there is




          • a single directory where user data is stored, defaulting to ~/.local/share;

          • a single directory where configuration is stored, defaulting to ~/.config;

          • a single directory which holds non-essiential data files, defaulting to ~/.cache.


          Historically, Unix programs were free to spread their data all over the $HOME directory, putting their data in dot-files (files starting with ".") or subdirectories such as ~/.vimrc and ~/.vim. The new specification is intended to make this behavior more predictable. I suspect this makes backups of application data easier, in addition to giving your home directory a tidier appearance. Not all applications adhere to this standard yet.



          In the .local hierarchy, programs put user information such as emails and calendar events. You could manually remove this data, but then the program would lose its state; unless this is what you intend (e.g. when there is a problem with your configuration), you shouldn't remove or change files in that directory. With .cache you can be more careless as the program should be able to recover - redownload or recompute - all the files if you remove them.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

            – Martin Owens -doctormo-
            Nov 23 '10 at 13:55











          • I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

            – loevborg
            Nov 23 '10 at 14:11








          • 7





            It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

            – Piotr Dobrogost
            Jul 24 '13 at 21:45






          • 3





            I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

            – lumeng.dev
            Sep 4 '15 at 19:58






          • 1





            What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

            – CMCDragonkai
            Jan 6 '17 at 8:23


















          114














          This is a recent innovation, followed by Gnome and thus by Ubuntu, to store user-specific data in fixed directories. According to this document, there is




          • a single directory where user data is stored, defaulting to ~/.local/share;

          • a single directory where configuration is stored, defaulting to ~/.config;

          • a single directory which holds non-essiential data files, defaulting to ~/.cache.


          Historically, Unix programs were free to spread their data all over the $HOME directory, putting their data in dot-files (files starting with ".") or subdirectories such as ~/.vimrc and ~/.vim. The new specification is intended to make this behavior more predictable. I suspect this makes backups of application data easier, in addition to giving your home directory a tidier appearance. Not all applications adhere to this standard yet.



          In the .local hierarchy, programs put user information such as emails and calendar events. You could manually remove this data, but then the program would lose its state; unless this is what you intend (e.g. when there is a problem with your configuration), you shouldn't remove or change files in that directory. With .cache you can be more careless as the program should be able to recover - redownload or recompute - all the files if you remove them.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

            – Martin Owens -doctormo-
            Nov 23 '10 at 13:55











          • I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

            – loevborg
            Nov 23 '10 at 14:11








          • 7





            It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

            – Piotr Dobrogost
            Jul 24 '13 at 21:45






          • 3





            I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

            – lumeng.dev
            Sep 4 '15 at 19:58






          • 1





            What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

            – CMCDragonkai
            Jan 6 '17 at 8:23
















          114












          114








          114







          This is a recent innovation, followed by Gnome and thus by Ubuntu, to store user-specific data in fixed directories. According to this document, there is




          • a single directory where user data is stored, defaulting to ~/.local/share;

          • a single directory where configuration is stored, defaulting to ~/.config;

          • a single directory which holds non-essiential data files, defaulting to ~/.cache.


          Historically, Unix programs were free to spread their data all over the $HOME directory, putting their data in dot-files (files starting with ".") or subdirectories such as ~/.vimrc and ~/.vim. The new specification is intended to make this behavior more predictable. I suspect this makes backups of application data easier, in addition to giving your home directory a tidier appearance. Not all applications adhere to this standard yet.



          In the .local hierarchy, programs put user information such as emails and calendar events. You could manually remove this data, but then the program would lose its state; unless this is what you intend (e.g. when there is a problem with your configuration), you shouldn't remove or change files in that directory. With .cache you can be more careless as the program should be able to recover - redownload or recompute - all the files if you remove them.






          share|improve this answer















          This is a recent innovation, followed by Gnome and thus by Ubuntu, to store user-specific data in fixed directories. According to this document, there is




          • a single directory where user data is stored, defaulting to ~/.local/share;

          • a single directory where configuration is stored, defaulting to ~/.config;

          • a single directory which holds non-essiential data files, defaulting to ~/.cache.


          Historically, Unix programs were free to spread their data all over the $HOME directory, putting their data in dot-files (files starting with ".") or subdirectories such as ~/.vimrc and ~/.vim. The new specification is intended to make this behavior more predictable. I suspect this makes backups of application data easier, in addition to giving your home directory a tidier appearance. Not all applications adhere to this standard yet.



          In the .local hierarchy, programs put user information such as emails and calendar events. You could manually remove this data, but then the program would lose its state; unless this is what you intend (e.g. when there is a problem with your configuration), you shouldn't remove or change files in that directory. With .cache you can be more careless as the program should be able to recover - redownload or recompute - all the files if you remove them.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 19 '14 at 15:17









          dimid

          1034




          1034










          answered Nov 23 '10 at 13:45









          loevborgloevborg

          5,63211823




          5,63211823








          • 1





            .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

            – Martin Owens -doctormo-
            Nov 23 '10 at 13:55











          • I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

            – loevborg
            Nov 23 '10 at 14:11








          • 7





            It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

            – Piotr Dobrogost
            Jul 24 '13 at 21:45






          • 3





            I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

            – lumeng.dev
            Sep 4 '15 at 19:58






          • 1





            What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

            – CMCDragonkai
            Jan 6 '17 at 8:23
















          • 1





            .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

            – Martin Owens -doctormo-
            Nov 23 '10 at 13:55











          • I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

            – loevborg
            Nov 23 '10 at 14:11








          • 7





            It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

            – Piotr Dobrogost
            Jul 24 '13 at 21:45






          • 3





            I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

            – lumeng.dev
            Sep 4 '15 at 19:58






          • 1





            What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

            – CMCDragonkai
            Jan 6 '17 at 8:23










          1




          1





          .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

          – Martin Owens -doctormo-
          Nov 23 '10 at 13:55





          .local is for storing user program data (like locally installed programs), not user data (like photos, calendars etc)

          – Martin Owens -doctormo-
          Nov 23 '10 at 13:55













          I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

          – loevborg
          Nov 23 '10 at 14:11







          I don't think you're right. Two interpretations of the specification are possible: (1) .local/share is supposed to be used in a way analogous to /usr/share, e.g. to override icons; and (2) applications are permitted to write state to subdirectories of .local/share. The existence of ~/.local/share/trash/ implies that at least some applications favor the second interpretation. Granted that .local is used to install local versions of software from source. But it is apparently also used to store data similar to ~/.firefox.

          – loevborg
          Nov 23 '10 at 14:11






          7




          7





          It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

          – Piotr Dobrogost
          Jul 24 '13 at 21:45





          It seems like .config and .cache should be inside .local for consistency, shouldn't they?

          – Piotr Dobrogost
          Jul 24 '13 at 21:45




          3




          3





          I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

          – lumeng.dev
          Sep 4 '15 at 19:58





          I'm wondering if it's a good idea to backup my ~/.local or parts of it for the purpose of easier recovering when my computer is broken. Or would it be mostly not applicable on a different/new computer? Any suggestion?

          – lumeng.dev
          Sep 4 '15 at 19:58




          1




          1





          What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

          – CMCDragonkai
          Jan 6 '17 at 8:23







          What other things can appear in ~/.local other than ~/.local/share and ~/.local/bin (which I know pip uses for user installations)?

          – CMCDragonkai
          Jan 6 '17 at 8:23















          9














          Let me share one of my experiences about the .local directory.
          I also found my disk partition(root partition) which store home directory has no enough space, and after I check those directories' content, I found the .local directory stores above 70G space, then I want to delete it, but fear the deletion could cause my ubuntu system crash. So I searched this question in google, and it directs me here.
          But the previous answers could not solve my problems, I only want two results on my system:




          1. Remove some content in the .local directory, then I could have enough disk space to store my new files;


          2. I don't want my system crash, it means I don't want to directly delete the content from my home .local directory, it's too dangerous!



          Finally, I found the biggest content under the .local directory is here:
          /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash
          It occupies 69G Bytes. I feel it relates to the Trash, so I go to trash:
          trash:///
          and empty the trash,
          Then I found the 69G bytes disk space was freed!!



          So my conclusions:




          1. It's highly risky to delete .local directory directly;


          2. We could safely delete content under /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash by "Empty" trash.







          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

            – machineghost
            Dec 19 '18 at 23:31


















          9














          Let me share one of my experiences about the .local directory.
          I also found my disk partition(root partition) which store home directory has no enough space, and after I check those directories' content, I found the .local directory stores above 70G space, then I want to delete it, but fear the deletion could cause my ubuntu system crash. So I searched this question in google, and it directs me here.
          But the previous answers could not solve my problems, I only want two results on my system:




          1. Remove some content in the .local directory, then I could have enough disk space to store my new files;


          2. I don't want my system crash, it means I don't want to directly delete the content from my home .local directory, it's too dangerous!



          Finally, I found the biggest content under the .local directory is here:
          /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash
          It occupies 69G Bytes. I feel it relates to the Trash, so I go to trash:
          trash:///
          and empty the trash,
          Then I found the 69G bytes disk space was freed!!



          So my conclusions:




          1. It's highly risky to delete .local directory directly;


          2. We could safely delete content under /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash by "Empty" trash.







          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

            – machineghost
            Dec 19 '18 at 23:31
















          9












          9








          9







          Let me share one of my experiences about the .local directory.
          I also found my disk partition(root partition) which store home directory has no enough space, and after I check those directories' content, I found the .local directory stores above 70G space, then I want to delete it, but fear the deletion could cause my ubuntu system crash. So I searched this question in google, and it directs me here.
          But the previous answers could not solve my problems, I only want two results on my system:




          1. Remove some content in the .local directory, then I could have enough disk space to store my new files;


          2. I don't want my system crash, it means I don't want to directly delete the content from my home .local directory, it's too dangerous!



          Finally, I found the biggest content under the .local directory is here:
          /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash
          It occupies 69G Bytes. I feel it relates to the Trash, so I go to trash:
          trash:///
          and empty the trash,
          Then I found the 69G bytes disk space was freed!!



          So my conclusions:




          1. It's highly risky to delete .local directory directly;


          2. We could safely delete content under /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash by "Empty" trash.







          share|improve this answer















          Let me share one of my experiences about the .local directory.
          I also found my disk partition(root partition) which store home directory has no enough space, and after I check those directories' content, I found the .local directory stores above 70G space, then I want to delete it, but fear the deletion could cause my ubuntu system crash. So I searched this question in google, and it directs me here.
          But the previous answers could not solve my problems, I only want two results on my system:




          1. Remove some content in the .local directory, then I could have enough disk space to store my new files;


          2. I don't want my system crash, it means I don't want to directly delete the content from my home .local directory, it's too dangerous!



          Finally, I found the biggest content under the .local directory is here:
          /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash
          It occupies 69G Bytes. I feel it relates to the Trash, so I go to trash:
          trash:///
          and empty the trash,
          Then I found the 69G bytes disk space was freed!!



          So my conclusions:




          1. It's highly risky to delete .local directory directly;


          2. We could safely delete content under /home/myAccount/.local/share/Trash by "Empty" trash.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 27 '17 at 5:48

























          answered Jul 11 '17 at 16:41









          Clock ZHONGClock ZHONG

          3751411




          3751411








          • 1





            Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

            – machineghost
            Dec 19 '18 at 23:31
















          • 1





            Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

            – machineghost
            Dec 19 '18 at 23:31










          1




          1





          Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

          – machineghost
          Dec 19 '18 at 23:31







          Thanks for this answer. The first answer might be the best for the question that got asked, but it's kind of dishonest in a way. It says .local contains "user information such as emails and calendar events", but the vast majority of what's in .local isn't user info at all: it's trash can files. Your answer explained what actually takes up the vast majority of .local, making it the better answer IMHO.

          – machineghost
          Dec 19 '18 at 23:31













          1














          The .local/ directory is used by some software to keep your preferences (as pointed by @loevborg). This directory is part of the effort to standardize the mess that is the $HOME user. But unfortunately many software has not yet joined this effort, even some gnome software still are spreading your preferences in others directory (see .gnome2, .gconf, .evolution, etc).



          It is not safe to remove the directory. Some apps store important information/config files inside this directory.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 11





            "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

            – Tim Abell
            Jul 25 '12 at 18:39






          • 5





            I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

            – Timo Kluck
            Aug 3 '12 at 10:48
















          1














          The .local/ directory is used by some software to keep your preferences (as pointed by @loevborg). This directory is part of the effort to standardize the mess that is the $HOME user. But unfortunately many software has not yet joined this effort, even some gnome software still are spreading your preferences in others directory (see .gnome2, .gconf, .evolution, etc).



          It is not safe to remove the directory. Some apps store important information/config files inside this directory.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 11





            "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

            – Tim Abell
            Jul 25 '12 at 18:39






          • 5





            I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

            – Timo Kluck
            Aug 3 '12 at 10:48














          1












          1








          1







          The .local/ directory is used by some software to keep your preferences (as pointed by @loevborg). This directory is part of the effort to standardize the mess that is the $HOME user. But unfortunately many software has not yet joined this effort, even some gnome software still are spreading your preferences in others directory (see .gnome2, .gconf, .evolution, etc).



          It is not safe to remove the directory. Some apps store important information/config files inside this directory.






          share|improve this answer















          The .local/ directory is used by some software to keep your preferences (as pointed by @loevborg). This directory is part of the effort to standardize the mess that is the $HOME user. But unfortunately many software has not yet joined this effort, even some gnome software still are spreading your preferences in others directory (see .gnome2, .gconf, .evolution, etc).



          It is not safe to remove the directory. Some apps store important information/config files inside this directory.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Feb 6 '16 at 0:36









          waltinator

          23.1k74269




          23.1k74269










          answered Nov 23 '10 at 14:03









          crncostacrncosta

          2,4331423




          2,4331423








          • 11





            "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

            – Tim Abell
            Jul 25 '12 at 18:39






          • 5





            I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

            – Timo Kluck
            Aug 3 '12 at 10:48














          • 11





            "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

            – Tim Abell
            Jul 25 '12 at 18:39






          • 5





            I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

            – Timo Kluck
            Aug 3 '12 at 10:48








          11




          11





          "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

          – Tim Abell
          Jul 25 '12 at 18:39





          "It is save to remove the directory!" - No it isn't!!!! Tomboy stores its notes in there as I discovered to my cost. Bad advice.

          – Tim Abell
          Jul 25 '12 at 18:39




          5




          5





          I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

          – Timo Kluck
          Aug 3 '12 at 10:48





          I'm sorry, but I have to downvote for your suggestion that it is safe to remove this directory when it certainly isn't.

          – Timo Kluck
          Aug 3 '12 at 10:48


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f14535%2fwhats-the-local-folder-for-in-my-home-directory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

          ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

          Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?