Go read up on the "Telephone Consummer Protection Act". http://www.junkbusters.com has a whole section on it.
In broad strokes it says this: When a telemarketer calls you have the right to tell them that you want your phone number placed on their "do not call" list *immediately*. If that particular telemarketer then calls you >1 more times in the next 52 weeks you have the right to collect damages of anywhere between $500-$1500
If you are diligent with this, keep a good log of when/who called and notice infractions usually a strongly worded letter to the company, with copies of your records, and a statement that you will sue for damages if necessary will net you a nice appology letter, a check, and a cessation of phone calls.
You can even go to Lowe's and purchase a $10 device that plugs into your phone line and plays a digital recording of someone reciting the TCPA when you hit a button. Junkbusters even has a prewritten script you can print out and keep near your phones.
I recently moved (which I do alot). I've noticed that when you change addresses and/or phone #s it takes about 4-5 months for the telemarketers to really catch up to you. This time around I was quite persistent with my invocation of the TCDA. I've been at my current house for almost a year now and it's rare if I receive even 1 or 2 telemarketing calls a week. It's bliss.
Go read the article about Quartz on Ars Technica. One thing they mention is that the bitmap icons can in fact be modified by applying vectors to them. I'm not talking about opticl recognition or even tracing (ala Adobe Streamline). I mean vectors as in "a vector in space".
As you mouse over that task bar in Quarters the bitmap icons grow and shrink. They don't just pop up larger and then pop down smaller they execute a smooth grow/shrink based on a vector used to scale the bitmap. If you select an icon in the task bar it doesn't just open an associated window/app it flows the information out from the width of the icon to the width of the app using two bezier curves to define the sides of the flow.
It's quite slick, as long as it doesn't suck CPU power like a ShopVac.
The display surface for Windows might be resolution independent but the icons are most certainly not.
Most Windows icons are 32x32 pixels with the tacit measurement assumption of 72pixels/inch. That means that at most used resolutions your Windows icons/toolbar icons will nominally appear as 1/2" squares. If your monitor isn't based on 72pixels/inch but 200ppi then your 32pixel icon will only take up a square area of about 1/6" on a side on your display. I don't know about you, but many times I find the current icons too small to impart any useful iconographic information. If those icons become 1/3 of their current size then there is proably no sense in having them.
It will take a fundimental change in the way Windows handles icons in order to get them to display properly on such a dense resolution monitor.
Since Windows likes to keep the icons in the actual executables or.dlls you can't just scale up a directory of images. You'd have to find all of the icons on the system (herculean task), extract them all, scale them all up by a factor of 3 and then reinsert them into the myriad.exe and.dll files they came from.
Display Postscript and it's successor, the new Quartz "display Acrobat", that can modify bitmaps with vectors is the proper way to go to achieve *true* device independance for a GUI.
File encryption and high security just aren't on the minds of the masses, yet. I'm sure many of the people that take part in Ford's program will be overwhelmed with functionality that many of us consider to be extremely basic. High level concepts like public key encryption, firewalling, and enabling/disabling cookies will not be things they easily understand.
I just went back to Mandrake 6.0 from 7.0. 7.0 contains the 2.2.14 kernel which finally has module support for the GI SB1000 1 way cable modem board.
Mandrake 6.0 with a downloaded 2.2.14 kernel, and following the installation steps lets met get up and running with my hybrid cable modem system in about 30 minutes.
If I use Mandrake 7.0 with their 2.2.14-15mdk custom kernal and follow the same steps, will never EVER access the cable modem. I tried 5 fresh installs over the weekend and followed the same steps each time. It just won't work.
Too bad really as the supermount functionality and the Drak configuration tools are very nice.
Unless you are using color band data from something like Landsat 7,then your "satellite photography" is probably radar imaged. Clouds won't appear since the radar images go right through them.
The Sun boxes are -flat-, like pizza box dimension flat. Can you get rack mount chassis that hold PIIIs or Athlons (with their annoying propensity to want to sit perpendicular to the motherboard) that are that thin? I honestly don't know, but I don't think it's possible due to the Slot1 layout.
The newer flat PIIIs might work better, but those weren't available when Pixar was working on TS2.
Did you figure in the cost of gigabit ethernet and the switches to go with it? I wouldn't even consider doing a large render on 100bt. For more money you have one single box. Ask pixar why they used 14 sun boxes and not a fleet of cheap PC's.
Pixar used many more than 14 Sun boxes. And you know why they chose Sun boxes with slower processors? It wasn't $/cycle or anything as traditional as that. They used a measurement of cycles/square foot. Since those Sun boxes are flat they could get many many more of them in the space they had for their renderfarm. Mac, SGIs, Alpha, and Intel boxes were out because they couldn't get enough of them in the room.
But what Pixar does is -orders- of magnitude more complex than the work a team of 5 artists does for a computer game. So, no, I didn't figure in the cost of a bunch of networking equipment that wouldn't benefit us greatly.
>Linux will run on low cost, high powered >hardware. IRIX will (currently) only run on >expensive proprietary SGI boxes.
I can easily put together a set of requirements that would force a Linux-based system to cost more than the "equivalent" SGI box. Real-time image processing on a video stream is one example: an R5000 O2 can do a lot in that regime (for tiny money); I don't know how you'd build the Linux box to do the same thing (assuming PC components).
I appologize, I was speaking strictly from the view of someone who uses computers to create 2D and 3D art assets for both realtime and prerendered animations. For the work I do I can easily grab a bunch of off the shelf components (motherboard, 2 PIIIs or Athlons, GeForce Quadro, SCSI card, SCSI drive, etc...) and build a box that would have a lot of bang/buck under either Linux or NT. It will be a heck of a lot cheaper than an Oxygen and it will do the job just as well.
My favorite comments, though, are when person P says something along the lines of "application X isn't supported on IRIX, so it sucks and is dying off" (e.g., Multigen Creator).
Well, if application X is a requirement right now, it's a requirement; choose a supported a platform and get to work.
Which was my point in the other part of this discussion (which I think you are refering to). The question I was answering was not about MIPS, but about the previous poster's (in that branch of this discussion) query as to why anyone would consider art asset creation on NT boxes.
We had SGIs. They were expensive to buy, expensive to own, and had very expensive software with expensive yearly support contracts. Then those application developers started making their software for NT (many times devoting their resources to the NT version before the IRIX version). Suddenly being on IRIX wasn't very useful. Moving to NT got us the better software, at better prices, and with lower $/machine. We went where the tools we needed were.
Now, IRIX might not be "dying", but a lack of applications on any given platform is usually not a good portent for the continuing viability of that platform.
Note, however, that a lot of those types of applications are also not supported on Linux. Well, P, by the transitive property, you're saying that Linux sucks and is dying off, too. Are you sure you want to say that? Here? Go on, I dare you....;-)
I never infered that Linux sucks. It most definately doesn't. I've already asked numerous people at MultiGen if they are considering a Linux port of Creator and if so, when. We moved from IRIX to NT because that was where the tools we needed were and the hardware was much less expensive. We'll move again if there is sufficient reason (i.e. needed applications exist there and the hardware won't bankrupt us) to do so.
Comparing Linux to IRIX (or saying that I'm infering that Linux sucks because of a lack of certain applications) in the context of this discussion isn't really valid. Linux will run on low cost, high powered hardware. IRIX will (currently) only run on expensive proprietary SGI boxes. If the choice came down to Linux on Intel or IRIX on MIPs, all other things being equal, we'd take the Linux route because it would be a better use of our $.
Seti doesn't even come close to using the FPU to the extent that a 3D rendering program will. Using Seti as some sort of contrived benchmark for -anything- is ridiculous in the extreme.
Sure one MIPS processor of a given mHz might outperform the same PIII at the same speed, but for the same money I can get a room full of PIIIs and have a very fast renderfarm. So what if an SGI can do 1 frame faster than my PIII. With the distributed renderfarm at the same $ I can have the entire animation done much much faster.
Plus I don't have to have yearly maintenance contracts for hardware and overpriced software that make the TCO of the machine much larger than it should be.
Ask Alias/Wavefront. With Maya 2.5 they've released the NT version before the IRIX version.
Ask Adobe who hasn't done an IRIX version of Photoshop since release 3.x
Ask Multigen, who developed Creator for NT first and then went back and did the IRIX version almost a year later.
It's much more cost effective for us to get an entire render farm worth of dual processor PIIIs or Athlons than it is to get an extremely small # of O2s or Oxygens.
I can do with Windows2K exactly what I would want to do with a VDvd. If I buy it, I can legally make a backup of it. I can't then distribute the Win2K disk, and I couldn't legally distribute the VDvd. But I've not promoted piracy in any of my arguments. I've just held the position that if I pay money for a product (not a service like a rental) then I have the legal right to protect my investment.
You just diluted your own argument by using a purchased product to try and uphold your position on leasing/renting. Obviously the issue is quite grey, which makes for a good debate.
If I buy it and there is nothing with my signature on it saying that I have to return it then I have purchased it, not rented it. If I've purchased it I can make a backup of it.
No, my view is not too narrow. If I buy a throw away CD at Wal*Mart there is no standing contract saying that I am obligated to return or destroy that article.
When you get a Blockbuster account you sign a document that is an open-ended rental agreement for any media item within the store. It states that you will return the item within a specified time frame or you will be billed extra for it. If you refuse to return the item by a specific date after rental they will bill your credit card (which they have on file) for the damages.
When you rent an apartment or a house you sign a legally binding contract that states that you will vacate the premises by a certain date and that you will leave the location in as good a condition as you found it, accepting normal wear and tear. You also put down a deposit against damages.
The same holds true for a car lease.
I seriously doubt Wal*Mart will require you to sign a legally binding agreement in order to purchase goods in their store. The overhead just to process such paperwork would be greater than the profits realized on the rentals. That leaves a shrinkwrap-eque copyright/agreement on the VDvd case. Those, just like software shrinkwraps, would have to be proven in court before they could be considered 100% legally binding.
Batteries are a good analogy. In both cases you are buying goods which provide you with short term benefits (entertainment or electricity) and go bad after a period. The batteries are mine to do with as I please. The VDvd would be also.
If I go to Wal*Mart and pick up a degrading title for $3--and I don't have to return it, I'm buying it.
Renting, leasing, borrowing, etc... assumes that at the end of a period of time the item in question will be returned to it's owner.
I pay $ for batteries, they degrade over time, and the manufacturer does not want them back. Does that mean that I'm just renting them? I don't think so.
If there were laws against producing items that would become landfill our entire capitalistic society would fail.
We're consumers. We consume things. We then throw away what is left. A software package comes shrink-wrapped (trash), inside of a box (trash), with a manual (trash), and a bunch of reply cards (trash). Eventually the software is old and it is replaced (trash).
Food comes in plastic bags, paper wrappers, styrofoam containers, all destined for the trash heap. Margarine tubs have such a low decomposition rate that they last for thousands of years.
LPs were replaced with 8 tracks and casette tapes. The LPs became trash. The 8 tracks died (trash) and the casettes were replaced with CDs (cassette trash).
Last year's computer gets replaced with a new one. They trickle down through charity programs and eventually end up as trash.
Everything we do creates trash. There is no way you could outlaw it by saying that producing an item that will become landfill is illegal. That would include just about everything, unless you want us to go back to being a strictly agrarian society.
Photoshop is more like Corel PhotoPaint. They are bitmap editting tools. They work with raster images and are resolution dependent.
CorelDraw is a vector based illustration tool. It works with bezier curves and is resolution independent (except for when you import a bitmap into your work). It's designed to create pages for output on PostScript devices.
CorelDraw is in the family of editors that includes Illustrator, Freehand, Flash (although Flash rasterizes to the screen), and KIllustrator.
The Program selection box in the beta application on the Corel site lists "CorelDraw 9 for Linux". It doesn't say "Corel Graphics Suite 9", so there is no guarantee that PhotoPaint is included.
Gee, could it possibly be that the reason OpenGL is slow under Linux is that XFree86 3.x is using a non optimal path from the application to the screen? Could it be that nVidia has identified this as a problem and is working towards a solution because they want to insure that their OpenGL performance under Linux is top notch?
Just because you pay an ISP for the priviledge to use their equipment that does NOT mean that I have to accept news posts from you. You're not paying me, you're paying the ISP. If the ISP you use is not a quality service and disregards proper responsibility on the Internet, and gets a UDP because of it, the fault is not on the shoulders of the owners of the news servers. The fault is on the ISP. You don't -have- to be using that ISP, you can go elsewhere.
Learn to assign blame to the proper party. The world doesn't owe you anything. The faster you get used to that, the better off you will do.
Slashdot Mirror
Go read up on the "Telephone Consummer Protection Act". http://www.junkbusters.com has a whole section on it.
In broad strokes it says this: When a telemarketer calls you have the right to tell them that you want your phone number placed on their "do not call" list *immediately*. If that particular telemarketer then calls you >1 more times in the next 52 weeks you have the right to collect damages of anywhere between $500-$1500
If you are diligent with this, keep a good log of when/who called and notice infractions usually a strongly worded letter to the company, with copies of your records, and a statement that you will sue for damages if necessary will net you a nice appology letter, a check, and a cessation of phone calls.
You can even go to Lowe's and purchase a $10 device that plugs into your phone line and plays a digital recording of someone reciting the TCPA when you hit a button. Junkbusters even has a prewritten script you can print out and keep near your phones.
I recently moved (which I do alot). I've noticed that when you change addresses and/or phone #s it takes about 4-5 months for the telemarketers to really catch up to you. This time around I was quite persistent with my invocation of the TCDA. I've been at my current house for almost a year now and it's rare if I receive even 1 or 2 telemarketing calls a week. It's bliss.
The Muppet Show was definately adult entertainment.
Bert, Ernie, Elmo, Oscar The Grouch, Big Bird, Snufflufagus, etc... are children's entertainment through and through.
Go read the article about Quartz on Ars Technica. One thing they mention is that the bitmap icons can in fact be modified by applying vectors to them. I'm not talking about opticl recognition or even tracing (ala Adobe Streamline). I mean vectors as in "a vector in space".
As you mouse over that task bar in Quarters the bitmap icons grow and shrink. They don't just pop up larger and then pop down smaller they execute a smooth grow/shrink based on a vector used to scale the bitmap. If you select an icon in the task bar it doesn't just open an associated window/app it flows the information out from the width of the icon to the width of the app using two bezier curves to define the sides of the flow.
It's quite slick, as long as it doesn't suck CPU power like a ShopVac.
The display surface for Windows might be resolution independent but the icons are most certainly not.
.dlls you can't just scale up a directory of images. You'd have to find all of the icons on the system (herculean task), extract them all, scale them all up by a factor of 3 and then reinsert them into the myriad .exe and .dll files they came from.
Most Windows icons are 32x32 pixels with the tacit measurement assumption of 72pixels/inch. That means that at most used resolutions your Windows icons/toolbar icons will nominally appear as 1/2" squares. If your monitor isn't based on 72pixels/inch but 200ppi then your 32pixel icon will only take up a square area of about 1/6" on a side on your display. I don't know about you, but many times I find the current icons too small to impart any useful iconographic information. If those icons become 1/3 of their current size then there is proably no sense in having them.
It will take a fundimental change in the way Windows handles icons in order to get them to display properly on such a dense resolution monitor.
Since Windows likes to keep the icons in the actual executables or
Display Postscript and it's successor, the new Quartz "display Acrobat", that can modify bitmaps with vectors is the proper way to go to achieve *true* device independance for a GUI.
File encryption and high security just aren't on the minds of the masses, yet. I'm sure many of the people that take part in Ford's program will be overwhelmed with functionality that many of us consider to be extremely basic. High level concepts like public key encryption, firewalling, and enabling/disabling cookies will not be things they easily understand.
I just went back to Mandrake 6.0 from 7.0. 7.0 contains the 2.2.14 kernel which finally has module support for the GI SB1000 1 way cable modem board.
Mandrake 6.0 with a downloaded 2.2.14 kernel, and following the installation steps lets met get up and running with my hybrid cable modem system in about 30 minutes.
If I use Mandrake 7.0 with their 2.2.14-15mdk custom kernal and follow the same steps, will never EVER access the cable modem. I tried 5 fresh installs over the weekend and followed the same steps each time. It just won't work.
Too bad really as the supermount functionality and the Drak configuration tools are very nice.
Unless you are using color band data from something like Landsat 7,then your "satellite photography" is probably radar imaged. Clouds won't appear since the radar images go right through them.
Only if you wanted an "actor" with an effective vertical resolution of 90cm or less with a margin of error of 1mm or greater.
...cheaper than an Oxygen...
I meant Octane. (must not type late at night...)
The Sun boxes are -flat-, like pizza box dimension flat. Can you get rack mount chassis that hold PIIIs or Athlons (with their annoying propensity to want to sit perpendicular to the motherboard) that are that thin? I honestly don't know, but I don't think it's possible due to the Slot1 layout.
The newer flat PIIIs might work better, but those weren't available when Pixar was working on TS2.
Did you figure in the cost of gigabit ethernet and the switches to go with it? I wouldn't even consider doing a large render on 100bt.
For more money you have one single box. Ask pixar why they used 14 sun boxes and not a fleet of cheap PC's.
Pixar used many more than 14 Sun boxes. And you know why they chose Sun boxes with slower processors? It wasn't $/cycle or anything as traditional as that. They used a measurement of cycles/square foot. Since those Sun boxes are flat they could get many many more of them in the space they had for their renderfarm. Mac, SGIs, Alpha, and Intel boxes were out because they couldn't get enough of them in the room.
But what Pixar does is -orders- of magnitude more complex than the work a team of 5 artists does for a computer game. So, no, I didn't figure in the cost of a bunch of networking equipment that wouldn't benefit us greatly.
>Linux will run on low cost, high powered >hardware. IRIX will (currently) only run on >expensive proprietary SGI boxes.
I can easily put together a set of requirements that would force a Linux-based system to cost more than the "equivalent" SGI box. Real-time image processing on a video stream is one example: an R5000 O2 can do a lot in that regime (for tiny money); I don't know how you'd build the Linux box to do the same thing (assuming PC components).
I appologize, I was speaking strictly from the view of someone who uses computers to create 2D and 3D art assets for both realtime and prerendered animations. For the work I do I can easily grab a bunch of off the shelf components (motherboard, 2 PIIIs or Athlons, GeForce Quadro, SCSI card, SCSI drive, etc...) and build a box that would have a lot of bang/buck under either Linux or NT. It will be a heck of a lot cheaper than an Oxygen and it will do the job just as well.
My favorite comments, though, are when person P says something along the lines of "application X isn't supported on IRIX, so it sucks and is dying off" (e.g., Multigen Creator).
;-)
Well, if application X is a requirement right now, it's a requirement; choose a supported a platform and get to work.
Which was my point in the other part of this discussion (which I think you are refering to). The question I was answering was not about MIPS, but about the previous poster's (in that branch of this discussion) query as to why anyone would consider art asset creation on NT boxes.
We had SGIs. They were expensive to buy, expensive to own, and had very expensive software with expensive yearly support contracts. Then those application developers started making their software for NT (many times devoting their resources to the NT version before the IRIX version). Suddenly being on IRIX wasn't very useful. Moving to NT got us the better software, at better prices, and with lower $/machine. We went where the tools we needed were.
Now, IRIX might not be "dying", but a lack of applications on any given platform is usually not a good portent for the continuing viability of that platform.
Note, however, that a lot of those types of applications are also not supported on Linux. Well, P, by the transitive property, you're saying that Linux sucks and is dying off, too. Are you sure you want to say that? Here? Go on, I dare you....
I never infered that Linux sucks. It most definately doesn't. I've already asked numerous people at MultiGen if they are considering a Linux port of Creator and if so, when. We moved from IRIX to NT because that was where the tools we needed were and the hardware was much less expensive. We'll move again if there is sufficient reason (i.e. needed applications exist there and the hardware won't bankrupt us) to do so.
Comparing Linux to IRIX (or saying that I'm infering that Linux sucks because of a lack of certain applications) in the context of this discussion isn't really valid. Linux will run on low cost, high powered hardware. IRIX will (currently) only run on expensive proprietary SGI boxes. If the choice came down to Linux on Intel or IRIX on MIPs, all other things being equal, we'd take the Linux route because it would be a better use of our $.
Seti doesn't even come close to using the FPU to the extent that a 3D rendering program will. Using Seti as some sort of contrived benchmark for -anything- is ridiculous in the extreme.
Sure one MIPS processor of a given mHz might outperform the same PIII at the same speed, but for the same money I can get a room full of PIIIs and have a very fast renderfarm. So what if an SGI can do 1 frame faster than my PIII. With the distributed renderfarm at the same $ I can have the entire animation done much much faster.
Plus I don't have to have yearly maintenance contracts for hardware and overpriced software that make the TCO of the machine much larger than it should be.
Ask Alias/Wavefront. With Maya 2.5 they've released the NT version before the IRIX version.
Ask Adobe who hasn't done an IRIX version of Photoshop since release 3.x
Ask Multigen, who developed Creator for NT first and then went back and did the IRIX version almost a year later.
It's much more cost effective for us to get an entire render farm worth of dual processor PIIIs or Athlons than it is to get an extremely small # of O2s or Oxygens.
Oooo, yeah. I'll plunk down $X (where X is any extremely large number) for a box just because it can process SETI information faster than a Pentium!
Boss: "So, is that new uber-SGI we just spent our last quarterly earnings on for you working out? How's our return on investment with that thing?"
Me: "Damn, nothing there..SHHH, I'm looking for E.T.....damn, nothihng there either. But, look at my freaking ranking on blocks processed!"
I can do with Windows2K exactly what I would want to do with a VDvd. If I buy it, I can legally make a backup of it. I can't then distribute the Win2K disk, and I couldn't legally distribute the VDvd. But I've not promoted piracy in any of my arguments. I've just held the position that if I pay money for a product (not a service like a rental) then I have the legal right to protect my investment.
You just diluted your own argument by using a purchased product to try and uphold your position on leasing/renting. Obviously the issue is quite grey, which makes for a good debate.
If I buy it and there is nothing with my signature on it saying that I have to return it then I have purchased it, not rented it. If I've purchased it I can make a backup of it.
No, my view is not too narrow. If I buy a throw away CD at Wal*Mart there is no standing contract saying that I am obligated to return or destroy that article.
When you get a Blockbuster account you sign a document that is an open-ended rental agreement for any media item within the store. It states that you will return the item within a specified time frame or you will be billed extra for it. If you refuse to return the item by a specific date after rental they will bill your credit card (which they have on file) for the damages.
When you rent an apartment or a house you sign a legally binding contract that states that you will vacate the premises by a certain date and that you will leave the location in as good a condition as you found it, accepting normal wear and tear. You also put down a deposit against damages.
The same holds true for a car lease.
I seriously doubt Wal*Mart will require you to sign a legally binding agreement in order to purchase goods in their store. The overhead just to process such paperwork would be greater than the profits realized on the rentals. That leaves a shrinkwrap-eque copyright/agreement on the VDvd case. Those, just like software shrinkwraps, would have to be proven in court before they could be considered 100% legally binding.
Batteries are a good analogy. In both cases you are buying goods which provide you with short term benefits (entertainment or electricity) and go bad after a period. The batteries are mine to do with as I please. The VDvd would be also.
If I go to Wal*Mart and pick up a degrading title for $3--and I don't have to return it, I'm buying it.
Renting, leasing, borrowing, etc... assumes that at the end of a period of time the item in question will be returned to it's owner.
I pay $ for batteries, they degrade over time, and the manufacturer does not want them back. Does that mean that I'm just renting them? I don't think so.
If there were laws against producing items that would become landfill our entire capitalistic society would fail.
We're consumers. We consume things. We then throw away what is left. A software package comes shrink-wrapped (trash), inside of a box (trash), with a manual (trash), and a bunch of reply cards (trash). Eventually the software is old and it is replaced (trash).
Food comes in plastic bags, paper wrappers, styrofoam containers, all destined for the trash heap. Margarine tubs have such a low decomposition rate that they last for thousands of years.
LPs were replaced with 8 tracks and casette tapes. The LPs became trash. The 8 tracks died (trash) and the casettes were replaced with CDs (cassette trash).
Last year's computer gets replaced with a new one. They trickle down through charity programs and eventually end up as trash.
Everything we do creates trash. There is no way you could outlaw it by saying that producing an item that will become landfill is illegal. That would include just about everything, unless you want us to go back to being a strictly agrarian society.
Do your D-Link cards access memory on a P6 bus? Do they handle communications from your CPU to the devices on the motherboard?
I didn't think so... Calm down.
It is in fact fair, and legal, to be monopolistic. It's how you manage to obtain that monopoly that determines whether or not you have broken the law.
(sigh)
Photoshop is more like Corel PhotoPaint. They are bitmap editting tools. They work with raster images and are resolution dependent.
CorelDraw is a vector based illustration tool. It works with bezier curves and is resolution independent (except for when you import a bitmap into your work). It's designed to create pages for output on PostScript devices.
CorelDraw is in the family of editors that includes Illustrator, Freehand, Flash (although Flash rasterizes to the screen), and KIllustrator.
The Program selection box in the beta application on the Corel site lists "CorelDraw 9 for Linux". It doesn't say "Corel Graphics Suite 9", so there is no guarantee that PhotoPaint is included.
Gee, could it possibly be that the reason OpenGL is slow under Linux is that XFree86 3.x is using a non optimal path from the application to the screen? Could it be that nVidia has identified this as a problem and is working towards a solution because they want to insure that their OpenGL performance under Linux is top notch?
Just because you pay an ISP for the priviledge to use their equipment that does NOT mean that I have to accept news posts from you. You're not paying me, you're paying the ISP. If the ISP you use is not a quality service and disregards proper responsibility on the Internet, and gets a UDP because of it, the fault is not on the shoulders of the owners of the news servers. The fault is on the ISP. You don't -have- to be using that ISP, you can go elsewhere.
Learn to assign blame to the proper party. The world doesn't owe you anything. The faster you get used to that, the better off you will do.