Make shutdown and user menu separate applets

You can remove indicator applet session from the panel and then add the shutdown applet. As for the indicator applet, I do not know of a way to just turn off the message menu, but that would be a desirable feature.

Unfortunately, the shutdown applet doesn't have an option to log out - that would require to add logout applet. I woudn't mind, but their icons don't quite fit the ubuntu style icons, moreover the icons are quite bigger then other.

You should probably file a separate bug against the indicator-applet package for the hiding of the message menu.

The ssession menu has been split to include a "me" menu which has the user name in it. There is now a "/system/indicator/me/anonymous" gconf key which will hide your username.

Great, thank you.

Is this in lucid yet? I can see no difference, it is still one applet and there is no schema for /system/indicator/me/anonymous, setting it with gconftool-2 has no effect ...

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a /system/indicator gconf schema in Lucid yet. There is a /apps/indicator-session/ one though, but that only includes suppress_logout_menuitem and suppress_logout_restart_shutdown.

I'm also looking a way to disable or hide the memenu, but keeping the shutdown button (with all the options, like "Lock Screen", and "Switch From username" which the "Shutdown applet" do not have). I can't find a indicator/me schema in gconf-editor

I just found this, you can remove the indicator-me package, and the "social" part of the menu will be gone on the next logon. The same apply for the "envelope" icon, you can remove the indicator-messages package.

sudo apt-get remove indicator-me indicator-messages

Well, this is good solution for me. But what if there were 2 (or more) users of one computer and first one would like to have it hidden but second one would like to have it shown.
C'mon, would it really be that hard to make it configurable? To program one submenu with one or two checkboxes is question of at most 5 minutes and it would really help. Or would you like users to yell "Hey, ubuntu is piece of * as you can't remove IM status indicator without removing shoutdown menu", "you can't remove envelope stuff without removing volume control". Not all ubuntu's users know this cannot be hidden as they just watch the screenshot someone makes. That could be why they don't report this as well, but when the final version is released, I believe this will be number one people will hate about Ubuntu. Not everyone want to be "part" of social networks.
But gess what, Sebastian, they won't fix it. They do not want to. As they didn't want to fix that wallperer included in Ubuntu 8.10 with visible steps in gradients as I reported half year ago, because it would add 1MB to ISO image (which could be saved by not including mono and by including better alternatives not dependent on mono). New wallpaper contains them again and wallpaper is among first things users notice and it's part of "first impression". And when you see the wallpaper, you just say - hey, they don't care what people think. And they removed gimp (a lot of saved space), but not because of wallpaper, but to include social piece of *. Why don't they just make better wallpaper. What is problem with some kind of "nature" in the wallpaper. There are not that visible jpeg artefacts. On "one color" wallpaper, there are.
They just release it, because they get money from sponsors, not from most of their users. They are not releasing Ubuntu for people, they are releasing it for themselves. That is why they won't fix this bug as well.

---
I'm impulsive. I know it. I have personality disorder, but I had to say what I thought.

On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 13:37 +0000, Jaroslav Šmíd wrote:
> To program one submenu with one or two checkboxes is question of at
> most 5 minutes and it would really help.

Wow, really? Then it would have taken you less time to fix it than to
write this rant! The hard part about configuration items is not writing
them, it's testing them as you start to add multipliers to the number of
tests you need. All in all, no issue with the feature. Just no
interest in spending the time to do the work required.

> Then it would have taken you less time to fix it than to write this rant!

If I wrote the patch, would you accept it?

On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 17:26 +0000, Jaroslav Šmíd wrote:
> > Then it would have taken you less time to fix it than to write this
> rant!
>
> If I wrote the patch, would you accept it?

If it was well written, had an appropriate test suite, etc, sure.
Though, since it is too late for Lucid (we're in beta2 freeze now), it
would probably make sense to use GSettings rather than GConf as that
should be in for Maverick.

This should probably be done in indicator-applet. What I'd like to see
is a way to both remove and set the ordering. Right now we just have a
static list of indicators to determine the ordering. It seems that
changing that list to be dynamic, and allowing for removing of items,
would be the best way to go.

One thing that I'm not sure on is how it should handle upgrades.
Perhaps a dict of some sort is better than a list.

gconf-editor currently (as of 10.04) has the following options:
/apps/indicator-session/suppress_logout_menuitem (bool)
/apps/indicator-session/suppress_logout_restart_menuitem (bool)
/apps/indicator-session/suppress_restart_menuitem (bool)
/apps/indicator-session/suppress_shutdown_menuitem (bool)

The least we can do is add
/apps/indicator-session/suppress_memenu_menuitem (bool)
/apps/indicator-session/suppress_switchuser_menuitem (bool)

I take back what i said about switchuser... I just found the gconf-editor key:
/desktop/gnome/lockdown/disable_user_switching
very useful.

I want to remove the logout applet from the indicator applet session and I want those options back in the main menu where they belong. But I would like to keep the me menu. Is that at all possible? I would also prefer it if the me menu didn't show my name. Two months have passed since comment #5, and /system/indicator/me/anonymous still doesn't seem to exist. Making this impossible to configure is just wrong. This shouldn't be an all or nothing choice.

While I'm at it: Why exactly are we reinventing the wheel? Why couldn't those things be normal gnome panel applets like everything else? I utterly fail to see a reason why that me-menu thing and that logout thing are one applet rather than two. And why are that volume thing and that envelope thing one applet rather than two? What's the point of a meta-applet that contains sub-applets; in fact, what's the point of two meta-applets each of which contains sub-applets? What problem does this solve that couldn't be taken care of with seperate panel applets and gnome's notification area? At least with the latter, I can configure what is shown in there by changing the list of startup programs. Please enlighten me.

As for the rationale behind the Me Menu etc, you can probably find your answers in this blog post by Mark Shuttleworth: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/347

The bug title should be updated to summarize the current issue