GNOME panel configurations

[Charles E "RIck" Taylor IV]

On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 23:18 +0000, Sean Hammond wrote:
> I can never come up with anything more satisfying than the default
> Ubuntu setup. But I don't like that setup too much. For one thing
> having two panels taking up screen space all the time seems a bit of a
> waste, and most of the top panel is just empty and grey.

I delete the top panel entirely, and move the couple of icons I need
from there down to the bottom.  Why?  Well, I have a 1024x600 screen on
this subnotebook, and I need the vertical space a lot more than I need
the "wide" version of the foot menu.

My bottom panel contains the foot menu, buttons for terminal, evolution,
and mozilla, the taskbar applet, the notification area, two network
monitors, a two-desktop (one on top of the other) desktop switcher, and
an icon that runs a custom script to properly set up the network when I
go to work.  Oh and the clock (without date display) and trashcan icons.

You're right - that top panel is mostly wasted empty space - unless you
like to run a million system monitors.

I'd consider a side panel, but it's too disorienting when I have to use
other systems occasionally at work.

>  I think I've come to the conclusion that the default setup Ubuntu
> uses, probably just the GNOME default, was very carefully chosen,
> because there doesn't really seem to be a better way with these
> panels.

It's very carefully chosen to waste precious vertical screen space. :)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV <rick at rickandpatty.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Web: http://www.rickandpatty.com
* Blog: http://shrimpandgrits.rickandpatty.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------