You referenced the Crusades and tied them directly to modern day Evangelical Christianity by giving the Crusades as an example of Evangelical behavior. Modern Evangelical Christianity has no ties the Crusades, but the Catholic church does. The Catholic church has not renounced any of the tenets they held in the middle ages.
And, yes, I'd say you have had bad experiences. I've known, and know, quite a few Evangelical Christians and they all are disgusted with those who preach hatred, rudeness, and confrontational behavior. I've also debated those who preach the theology of confrontation on forums such as TheologyOnline. In no way do I think that those people represent Christianity in any way, shape, or form. Just because they make the claim--take the name of--being a Christian doesn't make them one.
There's a difference between actually being something, and just claiming to be something. Claims do not make reality.
There is no proof the kid did anything for which he needs to "absolved". There is also the constitutional right to be "secure" in our homes against unreasonable search and seizure. What this school did/does most definitely crosses that line.
The fact that crime exists does not give the government the right to spy on what goes on in everyone's home just because something "might" be happening there. Just so, just because a kid "might" be doing something wrong doesn't give the school the right to invade his home.
How ignorance this blatant could be modded insightful is beyond me.
Sancho, just so you know, the Catholic church of the Middle Ages is NOT contemporary Evangelical Christianity. That you could mistake one for the other shows either a vast ignorance or a lack of ethics in your misrepresentation of the facts.
Now, I admit there are nutjobs in the current Evangelical crowd that seem to hate everyone who doesn't believe as they do, but they are not the majority nor do they represent mainstream Evangelical thought and beliefs.
There are also nutjobs in all belief systems including humanism. To say that the fringe element of any school of thought is representative of the whole is at best intellectual dishonesty, at worst a form of bigotry.
Allowing sudo usage in Linux is/can be pretty fine-grained depending on what the admin wants to allow. You can allow a user anywhere from a small portion root's power to all of it. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
It's new technology compared to the 80's and Linux is "new" technology to kids. They will end up trying and possibly adopting it just because kids try "new" things as a part of their "spreading their wings".
Kids aren't afraid to try new things because that's all they do every day. Everything is "new" to a kid at some point. It's we adults that seem to get locked into patterns very easily and are afraid of change.
You can believe whatever encounters you have had and try to make them an example, but the point remains that Linux is a very chaotic environment and nobody wants to stand up to be liable if something goes wrong.
LOL. Wow. The very thing that MS has been guilty of for years you lay at the feet of open source. Who was it that created an OS that gave no thought to security and then resisted securing their OS for years? Oh, yeah, that was MS. Who built "features" into their software that proved to be a gold mine for malware, and then only patched the problems as each "feature" was abused by malware? Oh, yeah, that was MS.
When was it MS stood up and said they really screwed up and took responsibility for all the security holes in their systems and software? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never have. They blame everyone else, including their users.
Yeah, kids learn nothing outside of what their parents have done. Kids just blindly follow their parents lead and never make different choices.
It's a lost cause introducing kids to technology that's new their parents. We sure know that's the truth. Not a kid alive uses technology that wasn't already in heavy use in the 80's.
So, you had problems getting Windows-based, proprietary software running on Ubuntu, and that is Ubuntu's fault? Of course that is a tricky proposition in many instances. The fact that it works at all is a testament to the skill of open source developers.
For anyone whose major computer usage is specific windows-based games that are very difficult to get working under Wine, then yeah, until there are Linux versions written they should stay with Windows. That's what Windows is good for--playing games. But, for non-gamers Linux is a very viable option. Saying that no one should recommend Linux to Windows users just because of the problems gamers run into is just plain silly. Not everyone is a gamer, and not everyone is addicted to games that are next to impossible to get to run on Linux.
Why not? It's as good of a reason as any. Isn't the availability of dependable, honest, cost-free service for any product a good reason for using that product? If I had a trustworthy friend who was a really good Honda mechanic and would do my repair work for free why wouldn't that be a good reason for driving a Honda? That would most certainly be a large consideration in my choice of car manufacturers when buying a car. Would it be not be a good reason for me to change the type of car I drive next time I buy a car? Would it be wrong for the mechanic to recommend a Honda to me if he thinks they are a good car?
We all make choices based on the recommendations of "experts" we trust. Why shouldn't these people do the same? They trusted him to repair their Windows computers, why shouldn't they trust his recommendation to switch OS's? And, what's more, why shouldn't he recommend a product he uses and trusts? To say he shouldn't recommend what he himself uses and trusts seems to me to be a personal problem of your side of this issue. You guys think you should control/change his behavior even when it's completely logical and ethical behavior.
What a load... Do you figure out how much it "costs" you to learn play a computer game well and add that to the price of the game? Do you count how much it "costs" you to watch tv, read a book, etc... and then never do anything along those lines because it's "too expensive" because of the time involved?
It simply doesn't take any more time to learn one environment than it does another. Just because YOU learned Windows first and think your Windows skills should be the only computer skills you should ever want or need to learn doesn't mean everyone thinks that way, or puts the same lack-of-value on new skills that you do.
You can believe whatever you want concerning the Linux desktop, but that doesn't mean you're correct. It just means that YOU believe that.
Other people have different opinions. Why should anyone have to put up with malware and be constantly having to update virus definitions, malware definitions, etc... if they don't have to? Linux means none of that junk on your system.
Linux also means no reinstalls every 6 months or so if you use your computer hard. It also means, if you run Debian, painless upgrades from one release to the next. I've gone more than 6 years, with 4 distribution upgrades, without formatting and reinstalling lab machines that get worked hard and have all kinds of experimentation done on them. I've never seen a Windows machine come even close to that. In fact, the best I ever got out of Windows machine in a lab environment was 6 months and they didn't get played with/modified the way my Linux machines do.
Why not? Why not save them the money? Why not use something for which there is no malware floating around? Why not introduce them to open source?
I see no reason not to. I "forced" my wife to start using Debian 5 years ago by getting rid of all Windows installation on all of our computers. Today she uses our home computers far more than she ever used Windows: probably at about a 20-to-1 ratio more. I've had no backlash from her whatsoever, and she is someone I had to teach how to drag-and-drop/cut-and-paste files after she'd used Windows at work for almost 20 years.
It was a painless transition for her. All I did was show her the menu system and tell her which programs did what. That took all of about 10 minutes.
All this crap about how Linux is just "too hard" for everyday users is just that, crap. I've introduced a lot of Windows users, and by users I mean the "typical" Windows user who can do no system administration under Windows, to Linux and none of them claimed it was "too hard" to use. I've also introduced first-time computer users to Linux and none of them struggled with Linux any more than they would have with Windows. The learning curve difficulty for users between the two is the same.
There is no real usability/ease-of-use difference between Windows and Linux. The only reason any Windows user will struggle with Linux if they insist that Linux must be nothing other than an identical copy of Windows and do everything exactly the same. That's just as unrealistic an expectation as expecting every stereo, TV, DVD player, mp3 player, etc... ever manufactured to have exactly the same interface and exactly the same menu system.... It's just plain old stupidity.
Yup. The Linux/Unix file system is a lot more logical and has a much better design. That, plus no stupid registry to have to screw with after uninstalling software. "apt-get purge packagename" and everything is gone, including the configuration files. If any directories do remain because they weren't empty apt tells you about them so you can delete them manually.
Ummmm.... If you're going to defend something at least get your defense right.
Qualm does NOT mean to try to quiet a disturbance, commotion, or person. You're thinking of calm, as in "to calm someone down".
Here is Webster's definition qualm.
Main Entry: qualm Pronunciation: \kwäm also kwom or kwälm\ Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown Date: circa 1530
1 : a sudden attack of illness, faintness, or nausea 2 : a sudden access of usually disturbing emotion (as doubt or fear) 3 : a feeling of uneasiness about a point especially of conscience or propriety
It is sometimes used in the following manner: She had qualms about the honesty of the action. Here's a sentence using both calm and qualm: She had to rationalize her actions to calm her qualms of conscience.
Do you actually expect that from MS? Since when has doing something the right way ever been a priority there? It's always been glitz over substance at MS.
I would disagree with your "personal responsibility" of the victim line as regards to bullying. I was a victim of bullying, but it started at home and then spread to include the rest of humanity.
I was first bullied by my old man and my older brother. When I was 3 my older brother bullied me into pissing on an electric fence. When I was 7 my old man forced me to shit my pants by refusing to stop the car so I could use a bathroom. Then he forced me to go out in public with the kids I went to school with while my pants were full.
The old man would also watch my older brother bully me and then punish me any time I would fight back. He'd punish me any time he found out about me fighting back against bullies at school too. My older brother would be sure to tell him all about it so he could watch me get punished.
The above paragraphs are just a small sample of what I went through at home. Was I "personally responsible" for my old man's bullying? Was I responsible for the rest of the bullies I ran into in life because my own parents beat it into me that I must just accept the bullying unless I wanted to be screamed and yelled at, and whipped, at home on top of what I got at school?
Am I responsible for my old man being a sadistic, mentally ill bastard, and my mother being an enabler? Hell, my parents even named me after someone they both despised and hated with a passion.
I know I'm not the lone ranger in regards to kids who are bullied because their parents set them up to be victims for the rest of the world. I'd say that in many cases there is zero personal responsibility on the part of the victims for attracting bullying, even if they are minus some social skills. Why? Because they were completely powerless victims of a parent, or parents, and/or siblings at home first, and have been actively denied the ability to learn the skills they needed to avoid the bullies by the very people who are both legally and morally responsible for teaching them those skills.
I wish you and your wife the best. I know from personal experience just how badly the businessmen, err, I mean doctors, in this country can screw up. My wife and I have both spent many thousands of dollars due to businessmen posing as doctors making mistakes due to arrogance and just flat out not caring for anything but the money they make.
It's difficult to find a competent, caring doctor these days.
standard slashdot routine, meanwhile, is to help yourself to everyone else's work. If you expect content to be made, expect someone else to pay for it. Not you, you are special, you are born with the inate write to take for free what everyone else has to pay for to make your life special. Such is the self-entitlement sleazebag attitude of the slashdot leech.
An overgrown sense of entitlement is pervasive in our society, not a/. phenomenon. It's been taught for decades in our educational systems and through all forms of media.
The only conflict at MS is their usual one: the conflict between what they say and what they do. This conflict is always found where there is a total lack of ethics. You'll find it in every liar you meet.
You want to put a FPS in the Debian repositories? Write a FPS that is compatible with the DFSG and don't expect to get paid for it because that capability just isn't there.
How do I make money from free software if it's in a genre that historically doesn't need the sort of support on which companies like Red Hat build their business?
Good question. I guess that's for you to research and figure out. It's not something I care about....
I answered your original post because you seemed to have a major misunderstanding about how and why the repository system works the way it does, and because you seemed to think that a system designed to distribute free software only is a failure because it doesn't support closed software. The only reason I even mentioned a FPS was to give an example of how far you were missing your target market--people who will pay for proprietary software--when you're wanting to use the Debian repositories as your distribution channel. You might as well be marketing your proprietary FPS games to little old ladies. You'll get about the same response.
Why ask someone who isn't even a gamer where the gaming market is? I just know that looking to Debian as a market for proprietary software would seem to be like looking for water in the desert. There might be some market, but it's going to be small and widely scattered.
In relation to your previous comments on the "failure" of the repositories to accommodate commercial software, how is it a failure? The absence of a way to sell commercial software is a feature. The APT system was designed to be that way. It wasn't designed to be a way for proprietary developers to market their software. Read the Debian Social Contract and the DFSG.
You want to put a FPS in the Debian repositories? Write a FPS that is compatible with the DFSG and don't expect to get paid for it because that capability just isn't there.
You might take a look at what Ubuntu is doing in this area as it seems they are/may be going to do something similar to what Linspire did with their CNR system. Linspire failed though as the vast majority of the Linux user base didn't like what they were doing.
there is no way to purchase anything using the APT system.
And this is the core problem with the distribution repository model: it is incompatible with the commercial proprietary software business model. If you object to this business model in the first place, then what is the Free (or even free) alternative to a video game like Modern Warfare 2 or Super Smash Bros. Brawl?
You miss the point.... Why do you want to try to sell your applications where there is no market for them? Would you try to sell a FPS in a craft store specializing in quilting supplies? Just how many quilters do you think would buy one?
The principle is the same with the repositories. Nobody, no Debian users anyway, goes to a Debian repository looking to buy proprietary software. You want to sell proprietary software to Debian users? Good luck with that. The vast majority of Debian users run Debian because it's free software, and by that I mean non-proprietary software.
As to your question about the games, I have no idea. The only game I currently play is Sudoku.
perhaps through a repository like we debian users have done forever?
The question remains the same: How would developers get their software into the repository, especially if it's in a genre of software that isn't very conducive to distribution as free software?
I'm a Debian user and if you're not writing free(GPL) software there's only a very remote chance that I would even be interested in using your software. In the last 5 years I've used only 2 proprietary software packages, and that's because I needed 1 to work with the RAW files my DSLR creates, and the other so I could have some way of color calibrating my monitor.
I'm not a rarity as far as Debian users go either. Proprietary software just doesn't show up on our radar very often. If I wasn't into photography I wouldn't be using any proprietary software.
The point is, why would you want to put proprietary software in a Debian repository? Not only would there be very few people interested in it, you would have to be giving it away as there is no way to purchase anything using the APT system.
Say what? Just how do you think providing entitlements to everyone for everything will cause an individual's sense of entitlement to grow smaller?
Ever seen a kid who never had to work for anything? They grow up thinking everything is owed to them. They also don't really value anything because they never learned the true cost of anything. The kid who grows up having to work for what he gets understands that "someone" has to pay for what he gets, and understands both the true value and the true cost of what he has.
You will never decrease a sense of entitlement in anyone by just giving them everything. They will just continue to feel entitled to anything they want, including what their neighbors have.
Slashdot Mirror
You referenced the Crusades and tied them directly to modern day Evangelical Christianity by giving the Crusades as an example of Evangelical behavior. Modern Evangelical Christianity has no ties the Crusades, but the Catholic church does. The Catholic church has not renounced any of the tenets they held in the middle ages.
And, yes, I'd say you have had bad experiences. I've known, and know, quite a few Evangelical Christians and they all are disgusted with those who preach hatred, rudeness, and confrontational behavior. I've also debated those who preach the theology of confrontation on forums such as TheologyOnline. In no way do I think that those people represent Christianity in any way, shape, or form. Just because they make the claim--take the name of--being a Christian doesn't make them one.
There's a difference between actually being something, and just claiming to be something. Claims do not make reality.
There is no proof the kid did anything for which he needs to "absolved". There is also the constitutional right to be "secure" in our homes against unreasonable search and seizure. What this school did/does most definitely crosses that line.
The fact that crime exists does not give the government the right to spy on what goes on in everyone's home just because something "might" be happening there. Just so, just because a kid "might" be doing something wrong doesn't give the school the right to invade his home.
How ignorance this blatant could be modded insightful is beyond me.
Sancho, just so you know, the Catholic church of the Middle Ages is NOT contemporary Evangelical Christianity. That you could mistake one for the other shows either a vast ignorance or a lack of ethics in your misrepresentation of the facts.
Now, I admit there are nutjobs in the current Evangelical crowd that seem to hate everyone who doesn't believe as they do, but they are not the majority nor do they represent mainstream Evangelical thought and beliefs.
There are also nutjobs in all belief systems including humanism. To say that the fringe element of any school of thought is representative of the whole is at best intellectual dishonesty, at worst a form of bigotry.
BTW, I am NOT an Evangelical Christian.
Allowing sudo usage in Linux is/can be pretty fine-grained depending on what the admin wants to allow. You can allow a user anywhere from a small portion root's power to all of it. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
You're missing the point....
It's new technology compared to the 80's and Linux is "new" technology to kids. They will end up trying and possibly adopting it just because kids try "new" things as a part of their "spreading their wings".
Kids aren't afraid to try new things because that's all they do every day. Everything is "new" to a kid at some point. It's we adults that seem to get locked into patterns very easily and are afraid of change.
You can believe whatever encounters you have had and try to make them an example, but the point remains that Linux is a very chaotic environment and nobody wants to stand up to be liable if something goes wrong.
LOL. Wow. The very thing that MS has been guilty of for years you lay at the feet of open source. Who was it that created an OS that gave no thought to security and then resisted securing their OS for years? Oh, yeah, that was MS. Who built "features" into their software that proved to be a gold mine for malware, and then only patched the problems as each "feature" was abused by malware? Oh, yeah, that was MS.
When was it MS stood up and said they really screwed up and took responsibility for all the security holes in their systems and software? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never have. They blame everyone else, including their users.
Yeah, kids learn nothing outside of what their parents have done. Kids just blindly follow their parents lead and never make different choices.
It's a lost cause introducing kids to technology that's new their parents. We sure know that's the truth. Not a kid alive uses technology that wasn't already in heavy use in the 80's.
So, you had problems getting Windows-based, proprietary software running on Ubuntu, and that is Ubuntu's fault? Of course that is a tricky proposition in many instances. The fact that it works at all is a testament to the skill of open source developers.
For anyone whose major computer usage is specific windows-based games that are very difficult to get working under Wine, then yeah, until there are Linux versions written they should stay with Windows. That's what Windows is good for--playing games. But, for non-gamers Linux is a very viable option. Saying that no one should recommend Linux to Windows users just because of the problems gamers run into is just plain silly. Not everyone is a gamer, and not everyone is addicted to games that are next to impossible to get to run on Linux.
Why not? It's as good of a reason as any. Isn't the availability of dependable, honest, cost-free service for any product a good reason for using that product? If I had a trustworthy friend who was a really good Honda mechanic and would do my repair work for free why wouldn't that be a good reason for driving a Honda? That would most certainly be a large consideration in my choice of car manufacturers when buying a car. Would it be not be a good reason for me to change the type of car I drive next time I buy a car? Would it be wrong for the mechanic to recommend a Honda to me if he thinks they are a good car?
We all make choices based on the recommendations of "experts" we trust. Why shouldn't these people do the same? They trusted him to repair their Windows computers, why shouldn't they trust his recommendation to switch OS's? And, what's more, why shouldn't he recommend a product he uses and trusts? To say he shouldn't recommend what he himself uses and trusts seems to me to be a personal problem of your side of this issue. You guys think you should control/change his behavior even when it's completely logical and ethical behavior.
LOL. You better not tell her that, and get anywhere within her reach.... She's small-but-mighty.
What a load... Do you figure out how much it "costs" you to learn play a computer game well and add that to the price of the game? Do you count how much it "costs" you to watch tv, read a book, etc... and then never do anything along those lines because it's "too expensive" because of the time involved?
It simply doesn't take any more time to learn one environment than it does another. Just because YOU learned Windows first and think your Windows skills should be the only computer skills you should ever want or need to learn doesn't mean everyone thinks that way, or puts the same lack-of-value on new skills that you do.
You can believe whatever you want concerning the Linux desktop, but that doesn't mean you're correct. It just means that YOU believe that.
So says you.
Other people have different opinions. Why should anyone have to put up with malware and be constantly having to update virus definitions, malware definitions, etc... if they don't have to? Linux means none of that junk on your system.
Linux also means no reinstalls every 6 months or so if you use your computer hard. It also means, if you run Debian, painless upgrades from one release to the next. I've gone more than 6 years, with 4 distribution upgrades, without formatting and reinstalling lab machines that get worked hard and have all kinds of experimentation done on them. I've never seen a Windows machine come even close to that. In fact, the best I ever got out of Windows machine in a lab environment was 6 months and they didn't get played with/modified the way my Linux machines do.
Why not? Why not save them the money? Why not use something for which there is no malware floating around? Why not introduce them to open source?
I see no reason not to. I "forced" my wife to start using Debian 5 years ago by getting rid of all Windows installation on all of our computers. Today she uses our home computers far more than she ever used Windows: probably at about a 20-to-1 ratio more. I've had no backlash from her whatsoever, and she is someone I had to teach how to drag-and-drop/cut-and-paste files after she'd used Windows at work for almost 20 years.
It was a painless transition for her. All I did was show her the menu system and tell her which programs did what. That took all of about 10 minutes.
All this crap about how Linux is just "too hard" for everyday users is just that, crap. I've introduced a lot of Windows users, and by users I mean the "typical" Windows user who can do no system administration under Windows, to Linux and none of them claimed it was "too hard" to use. I've also introduced first-time computer users to Linux and none of them struggled with Linux any more than they would have with Windows. The learning curve difficulty for users between the two is the same.
There is no real usability/ease-of-use difference between Windows and Linux. The only reason any Windows user will struggle with Linux if they insist that Linux must be nothing other than an identical copy of Windows and do everything exactly the same. That's just as unrealistic an expectation as expecting every stereo, TV, DVD player, mp3 player, etc... ever manufactured to have exactly the same interface and exactly the same menu system.... It's just plain old stupidity.
Yup. The Linux/Unix file system is a lot more logical and has a much better design. That, plus no stupid registry to have to screw with after uninstalling software. "apt-get purge packagename" and everything is gone, including the configuration files. If any directories do remain because they weren't empty apt tells you about them so you can delete them manually.
Ummmm.... If you're going to defend something at least get your defense right.
Qualm does NOT mean to try to quiet a disturbance, commotion, or person. You're thinking of calm, as in "to calm someone down".
Here is Webster's definition qualm.
Main Entry: qualm
Pronunciation: \kwäm also kwom or kwälm\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1530
1 : a sudden attack of illness, faintness, or nausea
2 : a sudden access of usually disturbing emotion (as doubt or fear)
3 : a feeling of uneasiness about a point especially of conscience or propriety
It is sometimes used in the following manner: She had qualms about the honesty of the action. Here's a sentence using both calm and qualm: She had to rationalize her actions to calm her qualms of conscience.
Do you actually expect that from MS? Since when has doing something the right way ever been a priority there? It's always been glitz over substance at MS.
I would disagree with your "personal responsibility" of the victim line as regards to bullying. I was a victim of bullying, but it started at home and then spread to include the rest of humanity.
I was first bullied by my old man and my older brother. When I was 3 my older brother bullied me into pissing on an electric fence. When I was 7 my old man forced me to shit my pants by refusing to stop the car so I could use a bathroom. Then he forced me to go out in public with the kids I went to school with while my pants were full.
The old man would also watch my older brother bully me and then punish me any time I would fight back. He'd punish me any time he found out about me fighting back against bullies at school too. My older brother would be sure to tell him all about it so he could watch me get punished.
The above paragraphs are just a small sample of what I went through at home. Was I "personally responsible" for my old man's bullying? Was I responsible for the rest of the bullies I ran into in life because my own parents beat it into me that I must just accept the bullying unless I wanted to be screamed and yelled at, and whipped, at home on top of what I got at school?
Am I responsible for my old man being a sadistic, mentally ill bastard, and my mother being an enabler? Hell, my parents even named me after someone they both despised and hated with a passion.
I know I'm not the lone ranger in regards to kids who are bullied because their parents set them up to be victims for the rest of the world. I'd say that in many cases there is zero personal responsibility on the part of the victims for attracting bullying, even if they are minus some social skills. Why? Because they were completely powerless victims of a parent, or parents, and/or siblings at home first, and have been actively denied the ability to learn the skills they needed to avoid the bullies by the very people who are both legally and morally responsible for teaching them those skills.
I wish you and your wife the best. I know from personal experience just how badly the businessmen, err, I mean doctors, in this country can screw up. My wife and I have both spent many thousands of dollars due to businessmen posing as doctors making mistakes due to arrogance and just flat out not caring for anything but the money they make.
It's difficult to find a competent, caring doctor these days.
standard slashdot routine, meanwhile, is to help yourself to everyone else's work.
If you expect content to be made, expect someone else to pay for it. Not you, you are special, you are born with the inate write to take for free what everyone else has to pay for to make your life special.
Such is the self-entitlement sleazebag attitude of the slashdot leech.
An overgrown sense of entitlement is pervasive in our society, not a /. phenomenon. It's been taught for decades in our educational systems and through all forms of media.
The only conflict at MS is their usual one: the conflict between what they say and what they do. This conflict is always found where there is a total lack of ethics. You'll find it in every liar you meet.
You want to put a FPS in the Debian repositories? Write a FPS that is compatible with the DFSG and don't expect to get paid for it because that capability just isn't there.
How do I make money from free software if it's in a genre that historically doesn't need the sort of support on which companies like Red Hat build their business?
Good question. I guess that's for you to research and figure out. It's not something I care about....
I answered your original post because you seemed to have a major misunderstanding about how and why the repository system works the way it does, and because you seemed to think that a system designed to distribute free software only is a failure because it doesn't support closed software. The only reason I even mentioned a FPS was to give an example of how far you were missing your target market--people who will pay for proprietary software--when you're wanting to use the Debian repositories as your distribution channel. You might as well be marketing your proprietary FPS games to little old ladies. You'll get about the same response.
Why ask someone who isn't even a gamer where the gaming market is? I just know that looking to Debian as a market for proprietary software would seem to be like looking for water in the desert. There might be some market, but it's going to be small and widely scattered.
In relation to your previous comments on the "failure" of the repositories to accommodate commercial software, how is it a failure? The absence of a way to sell commercial software is a feature. The APT system was designed to be that way. It wasn't designed to be a way for proprietary developers to market their software. Read the Debian Social Contract and the DFSG.
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
You want to put a FPS in the Debian repositories? Write a FPS that is compatible with the DFSG and don't expect to get paid for it because that capability just isn't there.
You might take a look at what Ubuntu is doing in this area as it seems they are/may be going to do something similar to what Linspire did with their CNR system. Linspire failed though as the vast majority of the Linux user base didn't like what they were doing.
there is no way to purchase anything using the APT system.
And this is the core problem with the distribution repository model: it is incompatible with the commercial proprietary software business model. If you object to this business model in the first place, then what is the Free (or even free) alternative to a video game like Modern Warfare 2 or Super Smash Bros. Brawl?
You miss the point.... Why do you want to try to sell your applications where there is no market for them? Would you try to sell a FPS in a craft store specializing in quilting supplies? Just how many quilters do you think would buy one?
The principle is the same with the repositories. Nobody, no Debian users anyway, goes to a Debian repository looking to buy proprietary software. You want to sell proprietary software to Debian users? Good luck with that. The vast majority of Debian users run Debian because it's free software, and by that I mean non-proprietary software.
As to your question about the games, I have no idea. The only game I currently play is Sudoku.
perhaps through a repository like we debian users have done forever?
The question remains the same: How would developers get their software into the repository, especially if it's in a genre of software that isn't very conducive to distribution as free software?
I'm a Debian user and if you're not writing free(GPL) software there's only a very remote chance that I would even be interested in using your software. In the last 5 years I've used only 2 proprietary software packages, and that's because I needed 1 to work with the RAW files my DSLR creates, and the other so I could have some way of color calibrating my monitor.
I'm not a rarity as far as Debian users go either. Proprietary software just doesn't show up on our radar very often. If I wasn't into photography I wouldn't be using any proprietary software.
The point is, why would you want to put proprietary software in a Debian repository? Not only would there be very few people interested in it, you would have to be giving it away as there is no way to purchase anything using the APT system.
Say what? Just how do you think providing entitlements to everyone for everything will cause an individual's sense of entitlement to grow smaller?
Ever seen a kid who never had to work for anything? They grow up thinking everything is owed to them. They also don't really value anything because they never learned the true cost of anything. The kid who grows up having to work for what he gets understands that "someone" has to pay for what he gets, and understands both the true value and the true cost of what he has.
You will never decrease a sense of entitlement in anyone by just giving them everything. They will just continue to feel entitled to anything they want, including what their neighbors have.