Right click in the terminal window and select "show menu bar" if it's not already enabled.  Then from the menu bar select 'edit', 'preferences'.  You can then configure it to your liking...

Or find the related dotfile in ~/.config/xfce4/terminal/terminalrc

Three possible states for the scroll bar:

1.

ScrollingBar=TERMINAL_SCROLLBAR_LEFT

2.

ScrollingBar=TERMINAL_SCROLLBAR_NONE

3.
Unspecified (default position on the right)

And if you mess it up, just rm ~/.config/xfce4/terminal/terminalrc and start afresh.

Self explanatory?

It sounds like the window could be getting accidentally "shaded" via a mouse action.

As I recall, double left clicking or scrolling the scroll wheel on the window title bar causes the window to roll/up down.  You could also temporarily switch to window decorations which support the shade button for a while and see how it goes.

That's not quite how it works.

Despite it's name, "dist-upgrade" won't upgrade the system to a newer release.

Normal 'upgrade' upgrades packages without removing anything. (it will "hold back" on upgrading packages which could result in removals)

dist-upgrade will aggressively remove packages to ensure it fully upgrades all other packages to the latest version in the repositories.  This is why dist-upgrade is used for the "second phase" oldstable to stable upgrade.  Every upgrade in unstable is pretty much a major upgrade, hence why dist-upgrade is the preferred method.

Refer to apt-get(8)

The next step is when everything breaks...

I'm still not sure if grsec is actually worth the effort these days, especially in view of this: https://grsecurity.net/passing_the_baton.php

i.e. in the future you'll have to pay for it...

I also wonder what exactly KSPP are trying to achieve, it seems like a talking shop at this stage.

And the attitudes of certain people, mean kernel security is never going to be anything more than a retroactive approach anyway: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kern … 06228.html (nothing unusual there, it's just the usual dismissive disdain for "security people")

I also wonder what exactly KSPP are trying to achieve, it seems like a talking shop at the moment...

Still not clear on what you're trying to achieve here.

From your second post it's clear that you have stanzas in /etc/network/interfaces for a wlan0 device and it's all configured to connect to the access point using wpa_supplicant configuration?  Then you've installed wicd as well and setting that to run as a daemon?  wicd won't be able to claim the wlan0 device and manage the connection as you've already configured and connected it in /etc/network/interfaces

The best way to stop wicd running on startup is to just remove the package, which will disable and remove it's rc scripts automatically.

fungus is my alt account...

Really, do you need the [funny][/funny] tags extension installed?

There is the approach of "proactive security", code auditing and general "code correction" principles as embraced by the OpenBSD project.  The general principle of "if there are too many lines to audit the code is garbage and needs to go" holds sway here rather than just piling on more and more raw functionality in a scenario of continual code bloat, while just pretending it's all ok.  Those submitting crap are pretty much told as such.  Theo de Raadt, the lead developer was once described by Linux Torvalds as "difficult".  Unlike many, Theo is into what he does best and is not some corporate whore in the pockets of big business.

The Linux kernel is about 25 million lines of code.  The whole of OpenBSD, kernel + userland is only about 3 million, as I recall.  Security is the main focus with OpenBSD and new security features are being constantly developed.  With this attitude "that the OS is still not secure enough", it can only improve rather than stagnating as some others have.  I can only say good things about it, having used it for a few years, but it's not for the fainthearted "Linux desktop user".  YMMV.

They can be safe, we can know that, but it's whether we choose to know or not.

Originally, projects such as GNU and BSD, etc were written by "hackers for hackers" at UC Berkeley and MIT and some other academic institutions.  The originally BSD style "permissive" licences were very simple in that they basically allowed code to be used for anything, without any real restriction so long as a copy of the licence was included.

GNU/Linux changed this in that it created a launch platform for Stallman's GPL and ideology.  GNU/Linux displaced BSD as the main contender for a free UNIX-like OS, not because it was superior, but because at the time FreeBSD, NetBSD and proprietary BSD/OS were still encumbered with AT&T code and BSDi were facing the USL lawsuit.

The Berkeley hackers who worked on BSD (which was originally based on licensed AT&T UNIX code) were not really motivated by Stallmanist ideology or corporate gain but by wanting to hack and by pragmatism - i.e. make something which works, works better than the alternatives and let others use it and appreciate that.

The current state of affairs is very different indeed - in that "Linux" (as a catch all) is not being "produced" for hackers by hackers, but by "developers" for consumers.

A quick comparison of the Linux Foundation and FreeBSD foundation websites will give at least an idea of what has come to be.  On the former we see paid employees of IBM, HP, Red Hat, Samsung, etc - in short "corporate reps".  On the latter we see that the majority are much the same types of academics as they have always been.

When the end user, even if they weren't a hacker, even if they were merely a tinkerer or someone with 15% understanding of a given system, even as someone who could and was prepared to actually configure their own system or submit a bug or patch something and rebuilt it from source, surrenders into becoming a "consumer", they effectively give up all the real benefits of FOSS and may as well switch to a proprietary product and be treated like a consumer.

With this in mind, the compiler being trusted, poisoned, etc becomes irrelevant (and by the way it's entirely possible to compromise a compiler so that it "poisons" specific code) as the "consumer" only wants a working end product.

When you consider that Linus Torvalds has publicly stated that he doesn't actually care about security and that the kernel is too big to audit, the compiler also seems irrelevant.

We hear it often:

" $LINUX_SOFTWARE_XYZ works for me"

MS Windows also "works for me".  As hard as it may be for some to grasp: Yes it really does just work - I can testify to that.  It may have some serious shortcomings, but it certainly works and works very well.  Do I like it?  No.  I use it at work, no choice, but wouldn't have it in my home.

As most people seem to miss or choose to ignore.  The world of GNU/Linux, the major distributions and the big software projects are now very much in the hands of corporations.  In my opinion Stallman's approach failed because the corporations simply bought off or employed the individuals involved in these projects, making them "free" only in licence, not in spirit.

This has been the case in London for many years.  All tube and bus travel is "cashless" and RFID based technology is used.  This means that every person and their movements within the public transport system are traceable.

fungus, my typo error - "thousands" should have been "hundreds" (I went to school, studied "history" and read the odd book as well, but as one ages the "think one thing, type something else" starts to creep in more and more.)

Regarding "design" of course there is no design as such.  A better phrasing would have been "by it's very nature".

The (gradual) formulation of neoliberalism doesn't really afford a "design" to capitalism either.  These systems evolve as a patchwork, unlike socialism which is usually born out of some kind of "ideology" and includes "a plan".

And personally I think "ideology" in itself (freedom of thought/speech included) is what's under attack from "the establishment", not just radical or hostile ideologies, but anything resembling free thought or formulation of opinion.

I've debated with people in the past on similar subjects and for the most part you get word for word repetition of this expert, or that politician or some newspaper columnist, you don't get the sense that people actually think about what's going on.  They say what they believe they are allowed to say, what they're expected to say, within certain (politically correct limits).  No one wants to deviate from the billions of smartphone addicted clones, in case they are lumped in with the lunatic fringe, oddballs or social misfits.

Pretty much agreed on all other points.

I think if we look at capitalism from a purely pragmatic point of view - it has got us "here".  We can call that good/bad.

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, etc have also got us "here".  The US for example, like so many former colonies, was initially built upon massacre of the indigenous people and slave labour.  We don't celebrate those as a means to an end, so it may seem unclear as to why capitalism is "the only answer" for some.  The answer of course is cold war era propaganda, the collapse of the soviet block, fall of the Berlin Wall the state of China and more.  There are people who suffered under those regimes, who would probably slap you in the face if you happened to think socialism/communism was a good idea.

But over thousands of years capitalism has followed similar patterns:

1) The rich get richer, the poor get poorer
2) A less privileged, less educated work force have traditionally been needed to "fuel the machine".  Without this, without poverty in fact, capitalism begins to erode and the privileged life styles of the few "living the dream" (at the expense of the many) collapses.  Thus:
3) There cannot, by design, be prosperity for all, or even the majority.
4) In the modern "global economy", the better standards of living enjoyed by working classes in the west is mainly facilitated by exploitation of cheap labour elsewhere in the world.
5) The "Military Industrial Complex" - short version: war is good for the economy (so long as it's not fought in your back yard).

We could conclude that we are living through the inevitable "conclusion", or near enough, of capitalism as it too evolves into a totalitarian state, effectively run (by proxy) by global big business / the social elites / super rich.  It could be argued that it's in its final "highly evolved" state or close.  My point is that it can never evolve into a fairer, juster society, free of poverty and corruption - only the reverse until it's final implosion.

Other systems were tried and failed, but of course dismissed by "the establishment" of the time, because of course the establishment would dismiss them.  Socialism in various forms has been tried, but snapped back to the opposite extreme in most cases.  Capitalism has been around universally for centuries in varied forms and has ultimately failed the many and enriched the select few.  If you're the few, capitalism is a success, if you're the vast majority of the world's population it's not.

1.  I never spoke of capitalism.  Perhaps globalisation in a round about way, but not captalism.  I tend not to get into purely political debates.  History will be the best judge of capitalism, not some posts in a Linux forum.

2. Of course.

3. I disagree.  There is the need to spread the word and keep people informed 'in the know'.  Above all, people need to start thinking for themselves again.  Even if it's just passing onto family members, it might be the 'spark' which brings about change.  Whatever your political leanings, "the state" should not be prying into your personal life, either directly or by proxy.

Most recent revolutions have not been "Red October" style uprisings, many have been the mobilisation of discontent which started as a murmur and rose to a crescendo - it's this which "the establishment" are afraid of.  Organised opposition with a hierarchical structure and comprised of people who are not anonymous, can be disrupted, divided and infiltrated as were the various Trotskyite movements in western Europe during the classic "cold war" era (before the existence of the WWW).

We saw from the recent Catalonia situation - and whether that was right or wrong is immaterial here - that visible and numerous demonstrators on the streets counts for absolutely nothing.  "The Media (tm)" have the means to portray demonstrators in any way they choose (and in fact the various media outlets, central government and regional government all had wildly differing estimates of the numbers actually on the streets).

4. In my opinion "protest" has, for the most part become token, along with strike action.  In the UK in the 1980s, people went on strike and went without, until they got the hard earned rights they were fighting for.  Nowadays strike action has been "watered down" to planned walkouts of a day or two.  The media portray the strikers as lazy and greedy who are already overpaid, etc.  Unions are being undermined, not just by the regime, but from within.  Demonstrations are also portrayed as the actions of the idle and privileged with little else to do with their time.  This has socially engineered the population as a whole to avoid getting involved.  There is also the "fear" factor - i.e. if you're seen at a demonstration, it may affect your career prospects.  You are effectively held to ransom and kept "in line" by social pressures.  It's about momentum, there needs to be momentum to bring about change, but the system is geared towards ensuring that there is social and political restraint.

Regarding activists on the web - keeping them on controlled media, means that they can be easily monitored and hindered/undermined if necessary.  The paradox is that in order to reach the people they want to reach, they need the exposure and reach those sites/applications afford them...

Well it seems possible at least, but not probable.  You would need a powerline adaptor built into the motherboard and directly accessing the mains AC rail, not via any internal circuitry.  This would mean that the motherboard and PSU vendors would have to be complicit.  So while much of this could be concealed in the "out of band" processor, there would still be physical and visible bits to give it away.

SOHO devices, particularly DSL or cable routers are already a complete disaster of, usually, out of date Linux based, firmware with a plethora of security concerns.  The hardware is usually a simple SoC with, dsl or cable modem, ethernet controller, switch and 802.11 access point.

It works differently here in the UK.  The cost of the box is included in the contract, so you do own it when the contract ends or when you pay it off.  It would not be cost effective for them to retrieve the things.  The best approach is to buy hardware which supports open fimware or just use a standard dumb DSL or cable 'modem', connect that to you own router and AP running something you can actually maintain.  More hassle than the convenient SOHO box, but it will be more secure.

I don't know about Motorola, but I don't trust google or their products.

In general, there are multiple forces at work here, but mainly global multi-nationals, "spycos" and government agencies.  History has proven again and again that controlling information is important to maintaining a particular regime or social order.  This is why we have brazenly partisan newspapers aligned to a particular political party and pushing that party's agenda.  In general people (from all parts of the political spectrum) don't question this, they just lap up whichever rag serves up what they choose to believe.

The WWW blew this old structure out of the water, in that people could watch, listen to and read a lot more things $THE_STATE doesn't want them to.  And this is what WWW censorship, "snooper charters", anti-encryption legislation and various restrictions on your privacy and civil liberty are really all about.  They're to ensure that fringe political movements never get off the ground and that the status quo is maintained.