Re: Permanently removing all desktop icons under gnome 2.0

[Darryl Rees <rees netnam vn>]

Dear Gnome User,

Are you talking about the right-click menu (or am I missing 
something...)? Most of the functions under that are useless if you don't 
have a desktop (new folder, new launcher, cleanup icons by name, change 
desktop background, cut&paste). About the only functionality that seems 
remotely useful to you is start a nautilus or terminal window... and of 
course these are obscured if you have a window maximized.

Alt-F1 will pop up the startup menu and works anywhere, nomatter what 
window-manager.

Cheers,
Long.

Gnome User wrote:

> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:27:20PM +1000, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
>  
>
> > On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 14:10, Gnome User wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Using sawmill is indeed a bit better, although still not ideal.
> > >
> > > Is there no way to just tell Gnome to get rid of all of those icons
> > > and still have its other desktop functionality enabled?
> > >
> > > Is my only option to put a "/bin/rm -f ~/.gnome-desktop/*" in my
> > > .profile, after all?
> > >      
> > Well, I'd tend to consider putting an "rm" in a script as being rather
> > "iffy" at best anyways...but if you've reconfigured nautilus to NOT draw
> > the desktop, AND you were using Sawfish as the wm, you shouldn't have
> > any further worries...
> >    
>
> Well, I agree about 'rm'.  But I get other nice functionality with
> Gnome's desktop enabled: for example, I can access some Gnome menus
> from the desktop.
>
> So I guess that I have to make a tradeoff: if I want the Gnome
> desktop functionality, I need to see those icons; and if I don't
> want to see those icons, I can use sawfish but not get to Gnome's
> menus from the desktop.
>
> That's not a horrible choice to have to make ... but I want to have
> my cake and eat it too. :)
>
>
>