Saturday, October 28, 2006

Global sourcing in the auto industry

Although the world's big carmakers have had global reach for decades,
they have been slow to take advantage of low wages in China and India
to supply inexpensive parts to their assembly plants in Europe, Japan,
and North America. The OEMs neither trusted the quality of Chinese and
Indian components nor regarded the companies that manufacture them as
any more efficient than the reliable existing suppliers in
geographically closer countries such as Mexico and the Czech Republic.
As recently as 2003, China exported just $4 billion worth of auto
parts—mostly low-quality aftermarket items rather than
original-equipment components used in the assembly of cars.1

Yet auto manufacturers are now rapidly shedding their skepticism. As
domestic car markets in China and India took off in recent years,
suppliers there made such big strides in quality and efficiency that
the best of them are close to meeting world-class standards. Moreover,
for certain components, locations such as Eastern Europe and Mexico
are no longer as competitive as they once were. Meanwhile, cutthroat
market conditions are forcing auto manufacturers into perpetual
belt-tightening mode. They have no choice but to trim their costs
constantly, since over the next ten years the price of a base-model
car is likely to remain flat in real terms—even as carmakers add
expensive new features to entice consumers or to comply with tougher
government regulations.

A company that manufactures some five million vehicles a year could
lighten the tab for parts by upward of $10 billion

Carmakers are now racing to buy as many bargain-basement parts as
possible in low-cost countries and urging the same policy on top-tier
global suppliers, such as Bosch, Denso, and TRW Automotive, which buy
thousands of parts for the large preassembled modules they deliver to
final-assembly plants. The cost savings may be enormous: carmakers
could cut their parts bills by up to 25 percent. A company that
manufactures about five million vehicles a year could theoretically
lighten the tab by more than $10 billion annually.

Realizing these savings in practice won't be easy, however; buying
auto parts is more complex than snapping up cheap shirts and plastic
toys. Carmakers and their suppliers forge multiyear relationships that
are difficult and expensive to unravel. Over time, a host of shifting
factors, from exchange rates to rising wages, can turn what might
initially have looked like a great deal into a costly mistake. It is
therefore vital to understand how costs will evolve, so that today's
sourcing decisions look smart ten years down the road.
The sourcing challenge

Compared with companies in industries such as electronics and
textiles, carmakers and their parts suppliers face difficult
challenges in global sourcing. Auto parts factories often require
large up-front investments, which are usually paid off over the five-
or seven-year life of a typical car model. Suppliers frequently spend
the year or two before a car's launch refining the design and
production process of its parts. Once assembly begins, the carmaker
expects suppliers to find cost reductions through engineering changes
or manufacturing improvements. Even after retiring a model, the
carmaker often continues to buy replacement parts for old cars still
on the road. And many parts require expensive production tools that
can't be replicated easily or shifted quickly to rival suppliers.

Moreover, the carmakers' long-lasting relationships with their
suppliers mean that traditional ways of estimating components
costs—for example, comparing current wages, energy prices, logistics
times, and shipping fees—can be inadequate or misleading. Carmakers
should judge how these factors are likely to evolve and interact over,
say, five to ten years; otherwise, a 10 percent savings may later
balloon into a 10 percent increase.

One example of the way shifting conditions can quickly alter the math
of global sourcing comes from China's aluminum industry. In just a few
years, surging demand has transformed the country from a net exporter
into a substantial importer. This development drove up the average
price of aluminum on the Shanghai spot market to $1,428 a ton in
2003—23 percent more than the average price on the London Metal
Exchange. It might have a similar effect on the cost of many aluminum
car parts, from engine blocks to suspension components. In addition,
exchange-rate uncertainty is higher than usual as US pressure on China
to uncouple the renminbi from the dollar mounts. If, as many analysts
believe, a freely floating renminbi were to appreciate against it,
most of the anticipated savings from sourcing in China would vanish.

Judgments on which parts to manufacture in low-cost countries must
therefore be made carefully and without preconceptions. Conventional
wisdom, for instance, holds that labor-intensive parts are the best
candidates for sourcing in such locations, but this isn't always true.
Consider the massive metal-stamping dies that carmakers use to bend
sheet metal into fenders and other body parts. These dies are
manufactured using expensive metal-cutting machinery. Typically, such
capital-intensive work stays close to home. But the production of dies
is shifting rapidly from North America to China because
government-sponsored access to cheap capital allows suppliers there to
buy the machinery at low cost, and it is then operated almost
around-the-clock by the country's huge workforce. In this case, China
has transformed its labor cost advantage into a capital utilization
advantage as well.

Sourcing in low-cost countries can undoubtedly be tricky, but
carmakers have little choice, for chronic overcapacity and merciless
competition have kept a lid on auto prices in the world's main markets
for more than a decade. The inflation-adjusted price of the basic
version of one of Europe's most popular models, for instance, held
almost constant from 1999 to 2002. Yet during that period, its maker
dramatically upgraded the car's standard equipment by adding airbags,
antilock brakes, a more powerful engine, and sophisticated electronics
to help drivers maintain control when they skid. To remain
competitive, carmakers will need to reduce their components costs by
as much as 30 percent over the next decade (Exhibit 1).

Making the sourcing decision

As carmakers plan for the future, how can they negotiate their way
through this minefield of ever-changing cost variables and choose the
cheapest source for a bewildering array of parts? Which locations make
the most sense over the long haul: the carmakers' home markets, nearby
low-cost countries, or new frontiers such as China and India?2 A
sensible first step is to sort an automobile's hundreds of mechanical
parts into clusters based on characteristics such as the balance
between the cost of labor and capital, the importance of raw-materials
costs, and the technical know-how suppliers must have to produce the
parts.

Some parts are so bulky (fuel tanks) or so easily damaged
(windshields) that they can't be shipped long distances economically;
carmakers must source such items close to home. For the rest, we have
identified five main clusters: technically sophisticated parts whose
manufacture requires little labor, average parts, technically
sophisticated parts with high labor requirements, simple parts that
have a significant labor component, and parts whose cost is driven
chiefly by raw materials. Once a carmaker organizes its shopping list
in this way, each location can be evaluated according to the key cost
factors, including local wage rates, the suppliers' engineering
capabilities, and annual rates of productivity improvement. The
crucial final step involves predicting how various factors, such as
the ability of the suppliers to improve their productivity and the
quality of their parts, will change over a car model's five- to
seven-year life cycle—in each of the possible locations.

The results of such an analysis can be surprising (Exhibit 2).
Consider the example of a US carmaker looking to buy plastic radiator
fans, which cost only a few dollars. This is the kind of simple
component you would expect to be sourced from China or India almost
automatically. The truth is that added shipping charges and the higher
cost of doing business in these countries wipe out any savings from
outsourcing to them. For North American carmakers, Mexico is now the
cheapest place to buy this part, and it is likely to be the cheapest
place in ten years.

Nevertheless, savvy carmakers should plan for the day, a few years
off, when low-cost countries become competitive for certain
components. A German carmaker considering whether to buy cast-aluminum
engine blocks in India, for instance, would decide not to do so—at
least for a car model to be introduced in 2004. Engine blocks
manufactured in Eastern Europe are clearly cheaper at the moment, and
that isn't likely to change soon, because aluminum prices in India are
relatively high and unlikely to fall until new production capacity
comes on line toward the end of the decade. In addition, the
suppliers' capital costs and profit margins are higher there.

The picture is likely to look quite different for a new model brought
to market in 2010. By then, the price of aluminum in India should be
in line with levels elsewhere, and the cost of capital should fall
somewhat as liberalization and other factors push down interest rates.
The productivity of Indian suppliers is likely to improve at a much
faster pace than that of their counterparts in Eastern Europe—or
indeed in Germany itself—and this ought to help them cut their unit
labor costs and improve their capital efficiency. Meanwhile wages,
which will probably rise only modestly in India, are projected to rise
by up to 10 percent a year in Eastern European countries as they race
to catch up with their western neighbors in the European Union. A
similar increase occurred in Spain after it gained membership, in
1986.

Under these assumptions, by 2010 India will have a cost advantage for
this kind of part over both Germany and the countries near it. Despite
India's current cost disadvantage, a company might want to take the
long view, in hopes of reaping the rewards later on, by locking in
some high-quality Indian production capacity right now, at least for a
small part of the volume.

For some parts, by contrast, carmakers would be wise to move
production to China and India immediately and on a large scale. An
air-conditioning compressor valve made of machined steel is a good
example. Western European carmakers now pay about $7 for the part,
with labor accounting for about 70 percent of the cost. Thanks to low
wages in China and India, it obviously makes sense to have companies
there supply the valve; the savings are immediate even given the
likelihood that using suppliers in a distant location may involve some
higher costs, such as a 60-day cushion of inventory instead of the 14
days needed with a manufacturer close to home. Moreover, the savings
are likely to grow over the coming decade as labor costs in China and
India rise more slowly than those in Europe, Japan, and North America.
The way forward

Over the longer haul, carmakers can increase their economies from
global sourcing by adjusting their own processes and product
requirements to match the capabilities and characteristics of
manufacturers in China and India. When a company designs new models,
for example, it can adjust its engineering specifications in order to
increase the number of parts that can be sourced from low-cost
countries—for instance, by working around the suppliers' technical
limitations or replacing automated assembly processes with manual
labor. Complex components, such as brake calipers and their housings,
which are currently bought from suppliers as preassembled units, could
be broken down into single parts, some of which can be produced almost
anywhere. This approach must be executed in partnership with the
top-tier supplier, which would likely keep the responsibility for
final assembly and testing.

Companies can also reengineer parts to reduce their technical
complexity. One European carmaker found that Chinese and Indian
suppliers lacked the know-how to make a coil suspension spring. Since
bringing them up to speed would have been too costly and
time-consuming, the company's engineers redesigned the steel spring so
that it was easier to manufacture but still matched the original's
performance. They also opted for a high-heat process (rather than the
advanced cold process originally planned) because it was within the
suppliers' capabilities. These decisions yielded 20 percent cost
savings, even with customs duties and higher costs for investment,
shipping, and inventory.

Sometimes an even simpler change in the production process will do the
trick. Instead of using expensive automated assembly lines to machine
large parts such as engine blocks or cylinder heads, for example,
suppliers can rely on manual machining tools that require more labor
to operate. Because of low wage rates, the lower capital investment
more than compensates for the cost of the additional manpower.

Some carmakers take a different tack. In 1999 Toyota Motor, for
example, intervened directly to help several Indian suppliers of
steering components implement the Toyota production system. It sent
Japanese experts to teach Indian workers the techniques of lean
manufacturing, from smoothing out spikes in production volume to
error-proofing individual production steps. The results were
remarkable. Over the next four years, one ball-joint supplier cut the
number of defects from 1,000 for every 1,000,000 parts to fewer than
50—roughly equal to the defect rates of established Toyota suppliers
elsewhere. Over the same period, the supplier's labor productivity
increased by almost 50 percent (Exhibit 3).

The downside is that this approach incurs additional costs that eat
into the overall savings, since carmakers must establish permanent
local offices staffed with engineers and production specialists to
coach suppliers as they climb the learning curve. This expense is
difficult for many carmakers to justify; because of disjointed
accounting practices, it usually lands on the books of the engineering
department while the savings accrue to the purchasing department.

All in all, automakers must change their operations fundamentally if
the rush to global sourcing is to generate lasting value. Top
management should prioritize the product clusters it wishes to
evaluate, set aggressive cost-savings targets, and stick to them over
time. Purchasing departments will have a growing need not only to keep
experienced people on the ground in low-cost countries but also to
focus on developing the suppliers' capabilities rather than simply
haggling over prices. Furthermore, automakers will have to attract and
nurture talented local managers—a steep challenge given the number of
companies, in a variety of industries, fighting over a limited pool of
people with the necessary experience and language and technical
skills.

The shift to parts suppliers in low-cost countries will happen only
gradually as old car models are retired and replaced by new ones

Even the most committed carmakers will need years to wring the maximum
savings from global-sourcing initiatives. The shift to suppliers in
low-cost countries will happen only gradually as old car models are
retired and replaced by new ones. The pace will vary from one company
to another. Some of those with close-knit networks of suppliers may be
slow to shift contracts away from them. (Many Japanese carmakers will
fall into this category.) Moreover, the high cost of closing factories
and laying off workers in Japan and many parts of Europe will make it
hard to justify such moves. By contrast, the nature of the ties
between US carmakers and their suppliers may facilitate the shift to
low-cost locations as quickly as model cycles allow; already, Ford
Motor and General Motors seem to be pushing more aggressively to buy
more parts in China and India than are their rivals in Asia or Europe.
European carmakers appear to fall somewhere between their counterparts
in the United States and Japan.

In all three regions, political sensitivities about moving jobs
offshore may slow the trend, particularly for parts still manufactured
in the carmakers' home countries. But in the longer term, the
intensity of competition will prevent such considerations from
stopping the race to buy cheaper parts. Car companies that plan
carefully, move forward with deliberate speed, and adapt their
processes to suit the needs of low-cost suppliers will likely generate
savings that persist over time rather than slip away as conditions
evolve.
About the Authors

Markus Bergmann is a consultant in McKinsey's Stuttgart office, Ramesh
Mangaleswaran is a principal in the Mumbai office, and Glenn Mercer is
a principal in the Cleveland office.
Notes

1 When we speak in this article of global sourcing in the automotive
industry, we do not mean the sourcing of parts in a given country for
use in car plants there. (China's domestic parts industry is indeed
booming, along with domestic demand for cars and trucks.) This article
addresses only the purchase of parts in one country for use in the
factories of another.

2 We don't exclude the possibility that other countries, such as
Brazil or Vietnam, might emerge as low-cost options, but China and
India are likely to be the dominant players and thus receive the bulk
of our attention here.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

如何打飞机

帝国主义、社会帝国主义都是“唯武器论”者,迷信所谓“空中优势”。因此,与敌人飞机和空降兵作斗争,,是对付敌人突然袭击,进行反侵略战争的一项重要任务。我们必须遵照毛主席关于“备战、备荒、为人民”,“深挖洞、广积粮、不称霸”的教导,充分做好精神上和物质上的准备,发扬一不怕苦、二不怕死的彻底革命精神,“全力以赴。务歼入侵之敌”。这个画页介绍用民兵常用的轻武器--步枪、冲锋枪对空射击的方法。

射击水平飞行的敌机时,应根据飞机的大小和距离的远近,提前一定的机身倍数。计算提前倍数的方法:飞机速度乘子弹到达飞机的时间,除机身长度。所得到的数字,就是再瞄准时应当考虑的提前量。

对侧方俯冲的敌机射击时,瞄准点应选在敌机的俯冲方向或俯冲后离去的方向;在俯冲阶段,射击时,应比水平飞行时的提前量增大四分之一。这是因为敌机俯冲速度比水平速度通常要大四分之一。

对俯冲的敌机射击时,瞄准要领应根据不同的情况来确定。对向着射手俯冲的敌机,可直接对着机头射击;对背着射手俯冲后离去的敌机,可直接瞄准敌机机尾射击。在这两种情况下,因为敌机的航向与航线与射线概略重合,所以都不必选取提前量。
根据步枪、冲锋枪的特点,对敌机射击时,距离五百米以内比较有效。这是利用围墙对空射击。
射击距离500米内的敌机时,步枪、冲锋枪应装定标尺【3】。这是利用土堆,采用仰卧姿势对空射击。
如果平时修筑适当的对空射击工事,敌机来犯时就能更有效地消灭它。这是利用工事对空射击。
对空射击时,应尽量利用地物采取适当的射击姿势,无地物利用时,可采取仰、跪、立等姿势射击。

要根据敌情、地形和环境条件,灵活地选择迎击敌机的地点和射击姿势。这是利用树木对空射击。

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Google基于HillTop算法

HillTop算法为何物及其工作原理
=============================
如果PR对于你来说是一个全新的概念,建议阅读有关Google的PageRank算法的文章。在最基本的搜索结果排序中,Google的PageRank 算法决定了一个网站的重要程度及最后的排名。根据这个原则,一个拥有100个链接的网站比一个只有10个链接的网站排名要高。在很多情况下这个因素都很重要。

而HillTop算法的指导思想和PageRank是一致的,即都通过反相链接的数量和质量来确定搜索结果的排序权重。但 HillTop认为只计算来自具有相同主题的相关文档链接对于搜索者的价值会更大:即主题相关网页之间的链接对于权重计算的贡献比主题不相关的链接价值要更高。在1999与2000年,当这个算法被Bharat与其他Google开发人员开发出来的时候,他们称这种对主题有影响的文档为“专家”文档,而只有从这些专家文档页面到目标文档的链接决定了被链接网页“权重得分”的主要部分。

与PageRank结合HillTop算法确定网页与搜索关键词的匹配程度的基本排序过程取代了过份依靠PageRank的值去寻找那些权威页面的方法。这对于两个具有同样主题而且PR相近的网页排序过程中:HillTop算法就显得非常的重要了。

Google 最早利用HillTop算法去定义相关网站:一个网站与另一个网站的相关性,实际上,HillTop算法在Google也中作为一个识别跨站点的链接交换干扰(spam)与识别相似链接的技术。HillTop算法要求:如果有两个以上相关主题的网站链接到你的网站,那么你的网站在搜索结果中出现的机会会更大,如果HillTop算法不查找到最少两个相关性的网站,那么搜索返回的结果的机会绝对是0。

Google应用新算法背后的原因
==========================
在1998年Google刚刚开始的时候,PR在决定适当程度与重要性方面起到了一个非常完美的作用。尽管如此,PR算法在设计上还是存在了一些脆弱性与限制性。Google在很早以前也就知道了。

HillTop 算法实际上是拒绝了部分通过随意交换链接的方法来扰乱Google的排名规则而得到较好排名的做法,而在HillTop的论文中也提到很多关于识别“网站链接交换联盟”的设计:如根据IPv4地址的头3段,根据域名的别名推测:example.com = example.com.cn;

PR值对于搜索关键词的匹配度作用不大:因为在很多包含相应关键词的非相关主题的网站具有很高的PR值。这就是Google在HillTop算法中尽量避免的东西:应该尽其所能去列出与搜索关键词相关的结果。

总得看来,从过去到今天,很多搜索引擎停止了那种只使用一种有价值的算法去决定排名的做法。如:meta keyword标签等。这只是一个开始,Google在第一步已经完全忽略html header中的meta标签了。与不可见的meta标签相比,一个网站的可视部分使用干扰技术较在meta使用的要少,因为可视部分毕竟还要面对大部分的实际的访问者。

专家文档的动态智能识别
======================
基于“专家”文档的 HillTop算法最大的难点是第一次“专家文档”的筛选,从目前的观察来看:Google显然首先给了教育(.edu),政府(.gov)和非盈利组织 (.org)站点很高的优先级。在运行时:Google会在庞大的内存里储存搜索频率比较高的关键词的索引,以备搜索者在短期内继续用同样的关键字短语等进行搜索。这些高频关键词还有另外一种作用,在“佛罗里达”更新之前很多人已经注意到的了:含有那些突增的搜索关键字的网站会得到较快的更新频率。如关于:\"SARS",每天的搜索次数数以百万计:Google就会优先对与这个主题有关的网站进行更新。

回头看一下以前每个月的 “Google Dance”,也能得出以下的结论:Google也明显地为一个关键词给予一个随机的“权重”,动态的根据关键词查询统计发现这些热门关键词,然后基于 HillTop算法面向主题地找到这些含有热门关键词的网页,让这些网页作为相应关键词的“专家”文档,针对这些索引入口保持比较高的更新频率:这点显然对于应对突发事件非常有效。而那些含有查询频率比较低的关键词所对应的网页可能要1月才更新一次。简单的说就是:Google会根据主题的热门程度动态调整相应网站的索引的强度。而Google中文用户在总体用户中的比例与Google索引的中文网页在索引的总体网页中的比例,从某种程度上说,也是有一定关系的。

Monday, October 02, 2006

Movable Type的安装指南

终于Blog重新开通了。原来的Blog数据都恢复中,网站改用Movable Type Version 3.2,本来已经不打算写什么东西,觉得没有兴趣为了一些自己所坚持的观点而在这里浪费口水!但终归还是按耐不住寂寞,Blog重新开通。

好久没有用MT了,重新安装又摸了一遍。现在整理个安装笔记,说不定会有朋友要用。哈哈!

先说说不使用数据库安装步骤:

准备工作:

A,现在我们假定你有一个名为www.cybersome.com的支持CGI的空间;

B,登陆FTP,你可以发现两个目录:/wwwroot和/others,前者可存放网页文件,后者是用来存放一些很重要的数据,比如说数据库什么的。在/wwwroot下,有一个/cgi-bin目录(有时候没有这个目录,你可以新建一个,然后把权限改为755),是用来存放cgi文件的。

上传文档:
建议使用CuteFTP 上传文件——他们能智能地判断文件类型然后在ASCII模式和Binary模式间切换。

一,在/wwwroot下建立一名叫mt-static文件夹,上传images 、 docs 、mt.js和 style.css至内;

二,在/wwwroot/cgi-bin/下建立名叫mt的文件夹将其余文件上传到这里;(如果你没有其他CGI程序,也可以不建立,直接在CGI目录下将其余文件上传)

三,在/wwwroot目录下建立/archives目录;

四,在/others下建立数据库目录/ABCDE(名字可随便取,但在mt.cfg里要设置正确)

五,在浏览器地址栏内输入http://www.cybersome.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-check.cgi。请注意 Current working directory 这一列,你将会看到类似如下信息:

Current working directory: /z1/test/wwwroot/cgi-bin/mt,其中 /z1/tesst/ 为你的虚拟主机目录在真实主机上的绝对路径(一台真实主机被分割为n台虚拟主机),视具体情况而不同,请记录下来,稍候设置路径时需要。

设定权限:

将/wwwroot/cgi-bin/mt下所有cgi文件设置为755。

配置mt.cfg文件:

六,用写字板或者其他文本编辑器打开mt安装目录下的mt.cfg(或mt-config.cgi-original):

a 修改以CGIPath 开头的那一列为 CGIPath http://www.cybersome.com/cgi-bin/mt/ (这个是你的CGI执行目录),其中斜体部分为修改的内容,请确定你的网址最后面留有一个往前的斜线(/)!。

b 修改以DataSource 开头的那一列为DataSource/z1/test/others/ABCDE (这是你的数据库目录),其中斜体部分为修改的内容,/z1/test/ 用自己空间的绝对路径替换,参考第五步。

c 修改以# StaticWebPath开头的那一列为 StaticWebPath/mt-static (这个是你前面建立的mt-static目录),其中斜体部分为修改的内容,并去掉行首的# 。

d 去掉 NoHTMLEntities 1 (这个是使用HTML生成)所在行首的 # 。

e 修改以 # SMTPServer 开头的那一列为 SMTPServer POP.cybersome.com(你的SMTP主机),其中斜体部为修改的内容,并去掉行首的# 。

储存 mt.cfg 档案(或mt-config.cgi-original文件重新命名mt-config.cgi),并且离开文字编辑器。

载入Movable Type:

七,在浏览器地址栏输入: http://www.cybersome.com/cgi-bin/mt.mt-check.cgi 稍候,会提示你安装成功。

进入后台:

八,在浏览器地址栏输入 http://www.cybersome.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt.cgi ,出现Movable Type 登入提示画面;如果没有的话,请检查你的权限设定。初始ID: Melody ,PWD: Nelson 。

Core Setup:
A Local Site Path:中填写 /z1/text/wwwroot/

Site URL:中填写 http://blog.cybersome.com/

Local Archive Path:中填写 /z1/test/wwwroot/archives

Archive URL:中填写 http://www.cybersome.com/archives/

保存并退出。

安装成功:

在浏览器地址栏输入 http://www.cybersome.com,就会出现MT的访问页面。

另外中文语言包安装方法:
1. 下载附件, 解压, 得到zh_cn.pm档案
2. 把zh_cn.pm上传到 extlib\MT\L10N 目录, 或者 lib\MT\L10N 目录下
3. 在MT的个人设置里选择简体中文


再说说使用数据库的安装:
前置作业:
1.一个支持Perl 5以上 & MySQL的虚空间。
2.一个个人网址,我用的是blogtw.idv.tw。
3.虚拟主机商寄来的email,上面有相关设定,必要时可以参考。

1、使用数据库安装步骤:

1.登入Typekey网站,下载Movable Type 3.0 Full verison with Libraries到自己的计算机。

2.把下载的档案先解压缩好备用。

3.先登入虚拟主机的管理区,建几个目录(要跟cgi-bin目录同一层的),等一下要用:
mt-static:这是静态档案的目录
blog:这是MT让人欣赏的目录
archives:这是文章汇整的目录

4.因为虚拟主机有MySQL,在管理区建了一个MT专用的数据库跟使用者,并设定密码,这个等一下也要用。

5.开始改mt.cfg。重点如下:(请找到以下所标示的粗体字部份)
5.1 CGIPath:因为虚拟主机商已经先建好一个cgi-bin目录,所以我就指到这边。
5.2 ObjectDriver:因为我用MySQL,所以要指定DBI::mysql。
5.3 Database:这边填我刚刚建好MT专用的数据库名称。
5.4 DBUser:这边填我刚刚建好MT专用数据库的使用者名称。
5.5 StaticWebPath:这边填刚刚建好的 /mt-static/ 目录。
5.6 NoHTMLEntities & PublishCharset:这两个在MT3.0的mt.cfg中都已经打开,所以不用更动。

6.开始改mt-db-pass.cgi。此档案只有一行,把那行删掉,将刚刚建好MT专用数据库的密码打进去,然后存盘。

7.开始上传档案到虚拟主机。重点如下:
7.1 解完压缩的[images]、[docs]、*.js和*.css,请上传到建好的mt-static目录。
7.2 剩下来的,全部上传到cgi-bin目录。

8.调整权限。将刚刚新建的三个目录全部调成777。

9.执行mt-load.cgi(放在cgi-bin目录下),它会自行侦测整个环境的信息是否适合安装MT。这支程序只要执行一次就好,若执行后无问题,在最后会出现请把这支程序删除的讯息。(请记得一定要删掉喔!)

10.执行mt.cgi(放在cgi-bin目录下),会跑出登入画面,请以以下数据登入(登入后可以自行修改):
UserName:Melody
Password:Nelson

-----------------------------------------------
1. 下载及安装

下载时,请下载MT-2.64-full-lib,带有所需的perl包

需要注意的是: 汉化包中带有htmlarea。汉化包中也带有汉化的图标。



将解压程序上传到cgi-bin(cgi execute)目录下,可以再建下一级的目录。images和docs目录转移到public_html目录下(web root)



2. perl包

MT-2.64-full-lib中基本的perl包已经包括了,也不用重新设置路径。可以使用mt-check.cgi检查是否已经安装了基本的包,其他的如image的,服务器如果未安装,仅仅perl接口是不够的。



3. mt.cfg的配置

可以参照jedi的手册。提醒几点,

CGIPath是带有http的全路径。

需另外指明StaticWebPath路径,一般是在public_html下。

中文的话需指明字符集:PublishCharset gb2312(UTF-8)

需打开NoHTMLEntities 1

权限请根据自己的服务器要求调整,使用缺省的即可。



4.数据库的设置

MT支持mysql, postgresql等轻型关系数据库以及berkeley DB文本型数据库。

berkeley DB: 只需打开DataSource ./db, 建立目录即可

mysql:

ObjectDriver DBI::mysql

Database your database name

DBUser your user name

需服务器支持mysql, 以及装有DBI:mysql组件。



5.字符集的设置

Jedi提供的是UTF-8汉化包,需将mt.cfg中设为PublishCharset
UTF-8,显示的页面也是UTF-8编码的,但如果转换到gb2312后,之前张贴的文章都将乱码,无法编辑。设置gb2312,
可使用我修改zh-cn.pm,
取代lib/MT/L10N下的同名文件。另,MT的charset设置最好与apache的设置保持一致,请咨询你的服务提供商。



6.mt.cfg的保护

由于虚拟主机的安全设置问题,mt.cfg可以直接显示出来,请在MT安装目录下增加.htaccess文件,增加如下内容:

[Files mt.cfg]

[Limit GET]

deny from all

[/Limit]

[/Files]

请将[]改为<>



7. 初始化

执行mt-install之后请将其删除。

访问mt.cgi,显示登录页面,初始用户是Melody, 密码是Nelson, 注意大小写。



8. 日志的配置

可在个人数据那里修改用户名和密吗,以及显示的语言。

必须有日志名。

路径最好是绝对路径,免得出错。

路径都应是在public_html下,以便访问,不要设在cgi-bin下。

归档(Archiving)不必全选,否则每次重建时,不需要的归档方式也要建立文件。



9. 重建档案

设置好后,重建档案,就可看到自己的weblog页面。

每次修改模板,都需重建档案。



10. 调整

采用单篇归档(Individual)时,需修改缺省日历上每日的URL, 缺省是指向最新文章,而不是当天的归档文件。

帮助指向的是docs下的英文,如果想指向zh-cn下的中文,需修改tmpl/cms下的tmpl文件。

模板和css的修改请参照手册

如需调整中文,请修改模板



例:显示回复

[div class="side"]

[MTComments lastn="10" sort_order="descend"]

[MTCommentEntry]

+ 回复:[a href="[$MTEntryLink$]"

target="_blank"][$MTEntryTitle$][/a] |

[/MTCommentEntry]

[$MTCommentAuthorLink show_email="0"$][br /]

[/MTComments]

[/div]

请将[]改为<>




powered by performancing firefox

Saturday, September 30, 2006

The laughing 9/11 bombers

FILM of the ringleader of the September 11 hijackers reading his “martyrdom” will inside Afghanistan at Osama Bin Laden’s headquarters has emerged five years after the Al-Qaeda outrage.

It is the first time that a videotape has appeared of Mohammed Atta — who flew an American Airlines plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center — at a training camp in Afghanistan. It fills in a significant gap in the timing of the build-up to the attacks on the United States.

Dates on the tape show Atta was filmed on January 18, 2000, together with Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers apparently stormed the flight deck.

The Sunday Times has obtained a copy of the video through a previously tested channel. The tape has no soundtrack and a US source said lip readers had tried without success to decipher what was being said.

Despite the deadly tasks the men had been assigned, they appear in high spirits, laughing and smiling in front of the camera. Only when Atta, with an AK-47 propped on a wall beside him, reads a document marked in Arabic “the will”, does he become solemn. Both are well groomed, without the haggard appearance of the identity mugshots issued after September 11.

The high quality, unedited film shows Bin Laden addressing his followers at the mud-walled complex near Kandahar. One of the main figures in the September 11 plot, Ramzi Binalshibh, is identifiable in the crowd, as is a bodyguard whose task was to kill Bin Laden with two bullets to the head if he faced capture.

Dating on the tape indicates that the Al-Qaeda leader was filmed on January 8, 2000, 10 days before Atta and Jarrah recorded their wills.

American and German investigators have struggled to find evidence of Atta’s whereabouts in January 2000 after he disappeared from Hamburg. The hour-long tape places him in Afghanistan at a decisive moment in the development of the conspiracy when he was given operational command. Months later both he and Jarrah enrolled at flying schools in America.

Investigators have also puzzled over the fact that unlike the rest of the hijackers — most of whom were young Saudi fundamentalists — Atta and Jarrah were well educated and appeared to fit into western society while studying in Germany. The video indicates how easily they slipped from a western identity to a fundamentalist one. It also shows up the subterfuge they maintained in Germany and America that they did not know each other, all part of evading detection.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The Top Ten Lies of Entrepreneurs

(Since I've antagonized the venture capital community with last week's blog, I thought I would complete the picture and “out” entrepreneurs to begin this week. The hard part about writing this blog was narrowing down these lies to ten.)

I get pitched dozens of times every year, and every pitch contains at least three or four of these lies. I provide them not because I believe I can increase the level of honesty of entrepreneurs as much as to help entrepreneurs come up with new lies. At least new lies indicate a modicum of creativity!

1. “Our projections are conservative.” An entrepreneur's projections are never conservative. If they were, they would be $0. I have never seen an entrepreneur achieve even her most conservative projections. Generally, an entrepreneur has no idea what sales will be, so she guesses: “Too little will make my deal uninteresting; too big, and I'll look hallucinogenic.” The result is that everyone's projections are $50 million in year four. As a rule of thumb, when I see a projection, I add one year to delivery time and multiply by .1.
2. “(Big name research firm) says our market will be $50 billion in 2010.” Every entrepreneur has a few slides about how the market potential for his segment is tens of billions. It doesn't matter if the product is bar mitzah planning software or 802.11 chip sets. Venture capitalists don't believe this type of forecast because it's the fifth one of this magnitude that they've heard that day. Entrepreneurs would do themselves a favor by simply removing any reference to market size estimates from consulting firms.
3. “(Big name company) is going to sign our purchase order next week.” This is the “I heard I have to show traction at a conference” lie of entrepreneurs. The funny thing is that next week, the purchase order still isn't signed. Nor the week after. The decision maker gets laid off, the CEO gets fired, there's a natural disaster, whatever. The only way to play this card if AFTER the purchase order is signed because no investor whose money you'd want will fall for this one.
4. “Key employees are set to join us as soon as we get funded.” More often than not when a venture capitalist calls these key employees who are VPs are Microsoft, Oracle, and Sun, he gets the following response, “Who said that? I recall meeting him at a Churchill Club meeting, but I certainly didn't say I would leave my cush $250,000/year job at Adobe to join his startup.” If it's true that key employees are ready to rock and roll, have them call the venture capitalist after the meeting and testify to this effect.
5. “No one is doing what we're doing.” This is a bummer of a lie because there are only two logical conclusions. First, no one else is doing this because there is no market for it. Second, the entrepreneur is so clueless that he can't even use Google to figure out he has competition. Suffice it to say that the lack of a market and cluelessness is not conducive to securing an investment. As a rule of thumb, if you have a good idea, five companies are going the same thing. If you have a great idea, fifteen companies are doing the same thing.
6. “No one can do what we're doing.” If there's anything worse than the lack of a market and cluelessness, it's arrogance. No one else can do this until the first company does it, and ten others spring up in the next ninety days. Let's see, no one else ran a sub four-minute mile after Roger Bannister. (It took only a month before John Landy did). The world is a big place. There are lots of smart people in it. Entrepreneurs are kidding themselves if they think they have any kind of monopoly on knowledge. And, sure as I'm a Macintosh user, on the same day that an entrepreneur tells this lie, the venture capitalist will have met with another company that's doing the same thing.
7. “Hurry because several other venture capital firms are interested.” The good news: There are maybe one hundred entrepreneurs in the world who can make this claim. The bad news: The fact that you are reading a blog about venture capital means you're not one of them. As my mother used to say, “Never play Russian roulette with an Uzi.” For the absolute cream of the crop, there is competition for a deal, and an entrepreneur can scare other investors to make a decision. For the rest of us, don't think one can create a sense of scarcity when it's not true. Re-read the previous blog about the lies of venture capitalists, to learn how entrepreneurs are hearing “maybe” when venture capitalists are saying “no.”
8. “Oracle is too big/dumb/slow to be a threat.” Larry Ellison has his own jet. He can keep the San Jose Airport open for his late night landings. His boat is so big that it can barely get under the Golden Gate Bridge. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs are flying on Southwest out of Oakland and stealing the free peanuts. There's a reason why Larry is where he is, and entrepreneurs are where they are, and it's not that he's big, dumb, and slow. Competing with Oracle, Microsoft, and other large companies is a very difficult task. Entrepreneurs who utter this lie look at best naive. You think it's bravado, but venture capitalists think it's stupidity.
9. “We have a proven management team.” Says who? Because the founder worked at Morgan Stanley for a summer? Or McKinsey for two years? Or he made sure that John Sculley's Macintosh could power on? Truly “proven” in a venture capitalist's eyes is founder of a company that returned billions to its investors. But if the entrepreneur were that proven, that he (a) probably wouldn't have to ask for money; (b) wouldn't be claiming that he's proven. (Do you think Wayne Gretzky went around saying, “I am a good hockey player”?) A better strategy is for the entrepreneur to state that (a) she has relevant industry experience; (b) she is going to do whatever it takes to succeed; (c) she is going to surround herself with directors and advisors who are proven; and (d) she'll step aside whenever it becomes necessary. This is good enough for a venture capitalist that believes in what the entrepreneur is doing.
10. “Patents make our product defensible.” The optimal number of times to use the P word in a presentation is one. Just once, say, “We have filed patents for what we are doing.” Done. The second time you say it, venture capitalists begin to suspect that you are depending too much on patents for defensibility. The third time you say it, you are holding a sign above your head that says, “I am clueless.” Sure, you should patent what you're doing--if for no other reason than to say it once in your presentation. But at the end of the patents are mostly good for impressing your parents. You won't have the time or money to sue anyone with a pocket deep enough to be worth suing.
11. “All we have to do is get 1% of the market.” (Here's a bonus since I still have battery power.) This lie is the flip side of “the market will be $50 billion.” There are two problems with this lie. First, no venture capitalist is interested in a company that is looking to get 1% or so of a market. Frankly, we want our companies to face the wrath of the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice. Second, it's also not that easy to get 1% of any market, so you look silly pretending that it is. Generally, it's much better for entrepreneurs to show a realistic appreciation of the difficulty of building a successful company.

PS: here is an interesting commentary on this blog by Jason Fried.

Written at: Vallco Shopping Center, Cupertino, California

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Testing Microsoft’s Live Writer (beta)

I recently downloaded the beta version of Microsoft’s new blogging tool, called Live Writer. This is my first post from my brand spanking new installation of this tool.

Despite the confusion with the “Live” trademark representing Microsoft’s web-based initiatives, Live Writer must be installed as a standard Windows application. From first blush, it appears that you can view this tool as an offline editor for your blog–where your blog can be any of several of the most popular blog types (WordPress, MSN Spaces, Blogger, TypePad, etc.)

I’ve encountered a few minor problems:

  1. I have a large number of hierarchical categories. Unfortunately, I can’t see all of them because the Live Writer drop down doesn’t give me a way of scrolling down. It would be nice if it could display my categories in a vertically scrollable checked tree view.
  2. I use a custom template called Neuron 1.5.1 on this blog. When connecting to my blog initially, Live Writer complained about the fact that it was missing some style information–and therefore, my blog postings in LIve Writer may not match my blog’s style.

Here’s a picture (to test the uploading capabilities):

Here’s a map of the Sever’s Corn Maze in Shakopee, MN (to test the map inclusion capabilities):


Post-Upload Comments:
  1. For whatever reason, my delicio.us and digg icons were displayed to the right of the aerial map, rather than on the next line.
  2. I tried editing the post (by adding an extra carriage return after the image) in Live Writer, and (rather than overwriting the current post), it created a new post (not the desired behavior).
  3. Conceptually, I like the idea of an offline blogging tool–I’m not always connected to the grid. I’ll have to try Live Writer out a bit more to see what additional value it can give me.
  4. I think I’d like to have a tool that would allow me to direct the same post to more than one blog, allowing me to cater some of my content to specific audiences. Live Writer doesn’t appear to have this capability at this time.
  5. The Top Ten Lies of Entrepreneurs
  6. Please don't send me Microsoft Word documents
  7. Why Linux isn't mainstream
  8. Luxeon Integration- -luxeon optics
  9. Homo sapiens Homo heidelbergensis
  10. Amie Street: Awesome New Music Model
  11. Profile: BlogAds
  12. Quick Takes: New Rules on U.S. Student Loan Programs, Career Ed Campuses Approved, Split Votes for Michigan Community Colleges, 3 of 11 Missing Visa H
  13. Where can I type in the title in "Jason's Blogger site in 2007" Blog?
  14. The Science of Zzzzz’s

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Please don't send me Microsoft Word documents

Most likely you have been directed to this document because you have attempted to e-mail me a document in Microsoft Word format. I would like to explain to you why I am probably not able to access this document, why you should reconsider sending Word documents to people, and what better alternatives are available for document exchange over the Internet.
Contents

* Why it's a bad idea to send Microsoft Word documents
* Alternatives to sending Word files
o Converting Word documents to other formats
* You can help put an end to Word attachments
* Related documents
* Aside: the problem with word processors in general

Why it's a bad idea to send Microsoft Word documents

Microsoft Word documents cannot always be read by other word processors.
The specification for Microsoft Word documents is a closely-guarded secret, and as such only software from Microsoft is capable of reading Word files correctly. People who use other word processors, either by choice or by necessity, may be unable to open Word documents. It is unfair to assume that everyone to whom you send a Word document has Microsoft Word, or to expect them to buy it in order to read your document. In fact, Microsoft has deliberately decided not to publish versions of its word processor for many of the world's most popular operating systems, so buying the software is not even an option for many people.
Documents produced with one version of Microsoft Word cannot always be read by other versions of Microsoft Word.
Even if the person to whom you are sending a Word document does indeed have Microsoft Word, he or she still might be unable to read it. Because the Word file format is not standard and fixed, Microsoft can, and in fact often does, change it from time to time. As a result, documents saved with one version of Word often cannot be opened with previous versions of Word. Many people believe that Microsoft does this in an effort to force users of old versions to buy the latest version, even when they are otherwise content with the older version and have no reason to "upgrade".
Microsoft Word documents are not guaranteed to look and print the same way on every computer and printer.
Contrary to what you might expect from Word's supposedly WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") interface, a document produced with Word on one computer may, in fact, end up with radically different formatting and pagination even when viewed with the same version of Word on another computer! The reason for this is that Microsoft Word will silently reformat a document based on the user's printer settings. This is bad news for certain kinds of documents, such as forms, which rely on elements precisely positioned on a page.
Microsoft Word documents are extremely large compared to other file formats.
The Word file format is bloated and inefficient; documents are often many orders of magnitude larger than the amount of text they contain. Even in today's age of ample hard drives, a large collection of Microsoft Word files can quickly eat up one's available disk space. For the millions of people who still use telephone dialup for their Internet connection, receiving Word files in e-mail can mean minutes to hours of waiting for the documents to download. Compare this to the mere seconds it would take to transfer the equivalent amount of information as plain text.
Sending Microsoft Word files can violate your privacy.
Microsoft Word is often configured by default to automatically track and record changes you make to a document. What many people do not realize is that this record of changes is actually silently embedded in the file every time you save your document. When you send such a document to a third party, it is a trivial matter for them to recover this log and see how the document appeared several revisions ago. Thus compromising or confidential information you thought you removed from a document before sending it may in fact still be accessible to the recipient. Indeed, there have been at least a few high-profile cases of confidential information being leaked via publically-posted Word documents.
Microsoft Word files are a security hazard.
Unlike standard data formats, Word files can contain programming code which can be executed by your computer automatically when the document is opened. Microsoft's motivation for including this "feature" in Word was to allow word processing macros to be saved along with the document. However, it was not long before malicious people began exploiting this design flaw by writing Word macro code to surreptitiously delete random files or otherwise damage one's computer. As a result, Word files are now notorious as the vector for dozens of computer viruses. When you receive a Word attachment by e-mail, do you really want to take the risk of welcoming a proverbial (and in computing terms, literal) Trojan horse into your system?

Most of the preceding arguments apply not only to Microsoft Word, but also to other commercial word processors, such as WordPerfect. However, Word attachments in particular are rapidly and unfortunately becoming more and more popular among Internet users, most of whom do not realize the problems they cause. Fortunately, the problem of sending proprietary file formats is not difficult to work around, and does not require you to stop using Microsoft Word.
Alternatives to sending Word files

Plain text
Unless your document actually requires special fonts or formatting, consider simply typing it (or copy-and-pasting it) directly into the e-mail you are sending. This way nobody needs to open up a separate program to read your document.
HTML
HTML is a text-based format commonly used for writing web pages and other electronic documents. Its ability to be edited and its status as an open standard make it ideal for document exchange. HTML documents are not intended to be displayed exactly the same way on every system, though, so if the physical page layout is important, consider sending a Postscript, PDF, or RTF file instead.
Postscript or PDF (Adobe Acrobat)
If you are sending a document which has extensive formatting and is intended to be printed out, and which you do not expect the recipient to have to or want to modify, consider sending a Postscript or PDF file. These two file formats are fully and publically documented, and programs to read them are widely available for a variety of computing platforms. Unlike with Microsoft Word files, Postscript and PDF files will always display exactly the same on the recipient's system as on yours. One important caveat with these file formats, though, is that they are "read only"; there's no easy way for the recipient to edit the documents himself.
Rich Text Format (RTF)
In cases where the document makes use of special formatting and you expect the recipient to edit it, you may wish to send a Rich Text (RTF) file instead of a Word file. RTF was developed as a standard data interchange format for word processors, and most popular word processors can read and write such files. RTF may not preserve physical formatting exactly, but unlike with HTML, it at least tries to specify physical presentation rather than leaving it entirely up to the recipient's application.

Converting Word documents to other formats

Converting your Word documents to one of the above formats is easy. In most cases, you can simply use the Save As command from the File menu; somewhere in the dialog window that appears will be a drop-down box allowing you to select the file format.

If you want to send a document as plain text, a quick alternative to resaving it is to simply select the document text with the mouse cursor or with Edit→Select All, copy it to the clipboard (Edit→Copy), and then paste it into an e-mail in your mail program (Edit→Paste).

PDF and Postscript are not typically in the list of formats Microsoft Word can export to. However, some systems are configured to allow you to produce PDF files through the Print command. To see if your system supports this, activate the Print command from the File menu and look through the list of available printers for one whose name indicates it produces PDF or Acrobat files.
You can help put an end to Word attachments

Besides not sending them yourself, you can spare others the grief of dealing with proprietary document formats by encouraging people not to send them to you. If you receive a Word attachment in your e-mail, please send the sender a politely worded reply indicating why Word attachments are inappropriate and requesting the document in an alternative format. So as not to waste the sender's time, keep the message brief, but include the address of a web page where they can receive a fuller explanation if they wish. Feel free to cite this document, or one of the ones I've listed below; you could even write up and then refer to a helpful web page containing an explanation in your own words. (Take care, however, that your write-up is suitable for a non-technical audience.)
Related documents

For the same or similar reasons, many other people cannot or will not accept Word attachments. Here are links to the explanations some of them have also posted:

* MS-Word is not a document exchange format by Jeff Goldberg
* Don't send Microsoft Word documents to me by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
* We can put an end to Word attachments by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation
* Please don't send Word Documents by email by Tobias Brox
* Avoid e-mail attachments, especially Microsoft Word by Neal McBurnett
* Attachments in proprietary formats considered harmful by Manuel Chakravarty

Aside: the problem with word processors in general

The purpose of this article is not to promote the use of any one word processor over another, but rather to promote the use of standardized, efficient formats for exchange of written information. To that end, please consider dispensing with word processors altogether as a means of producing written communication. An inherent problem with the word processor paradigm is that it conflates the tasks of composition (fixing one's ideas into words in a logically and semantically structured document) and typesetting (determining the superficial physical appearance of a document, via, for example, margin and font settings). This lack of distinction is a cause or contributing factor to many of the problems discussed in this article, along with a great number of problems not related to the exchange of documents over the Internet.

Fortunately, there exist a number alternative document preparation systems which enforce a healthy separation between composition and typesetting. Most of these systems are unencumbered by the problems of proprietary file formats, and can produce output in a variety of standard formats such as PDF and HTML.

For more information on the problems of the word processor and WYSIWYG paradigms:

* Word processors: stupid and inefficient by Allin Cottrell
* What has WYSIWYG done to us? by Conrad Taylor

Here are links to some Free document preparation programs which do not use the word processing paradigm:

* LaTeX is extremely popular among authors of technical and scientific documents, though it can be used for almost any form of publishing. It does not include a graphical interface, which you may find either liberating or daunting. There are commercial and non-commercial LaTeX versions available for all popular computing platforms, including MS-Windows, Mac OS, GNU/Linux, and Unix.
* LyX is a document processor similar to LaTeX, but with a user-friendly graphical WYSIWYM ("What You See Is What You Mean") interface. It was originally developed for Unix-like systems, but has been ported to MS-Windows and OS/2.
* TeXmacs is a graphical scientific editor for Unix-like systems (including MS-Windows with the Cygwin environment). It integrates well with many existing toolkits for mathematics, statistics, and physics.
* DocBook provides a system for writing structured documents using SGML or XML. It enjoys considerable popularity among print book publishers, authors of software documentation, and writers of FAQs and other technical websites.
* ConTeXt is a text-based document preparation system similar to LaTeX.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Why Linux isn't mainstream

With the ease of installation, maintenance, and use of many recent Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu and Fedora, some are left wondering why Linux still isn't more widespread. Here's my theory.

First, the home computer. People at home generally want to use an OS compatible with what they use at work. Linux isn't at work, so it isn't at home. Additionally, you can't easily play many commercial games on Linux. An overwhelming majority of retail PC games are released for Windows only. Those PC games that are also released for other operating systems are usually released for Windows and MacIntosh. It's rare that a retail PC game is released for Linux.

But the primary reason that more home users aren't on Linux is because they don't use Linux at work. So the work environment is the root of the problem. As a network administrator, there's one and only one reason that I've never experimented with Linux on the desktop: Microsoft Exchange. The suits love Exchange. They don't love open source groupware that imitates Exchange. And since the suits sign my paycheck, I use it. In fact, at my current place of employment, Exchange is forced on us by the parent organization. So I don't even have the choice of changing.

Now, I know what you're thinking -- Evolution works with Exchange. Well, no, it doesn't. Evolution connects to Exchange via Exchange's Outlook Web Access functionality. The result is this:

* Evolution is significantly slower than Outlook.
* Evolution can't engage in calendar sharing or look at public folders in an easy-for-the-lay-person or intuitive manner.
* Evolution is necessarily limited in functionality in all the same ways that Outlook Web Access is limited in functionality. This is doubly crippling since certain Outlook Web Access features are available only to Internet Explorer clients.


And of course, Wine consistently fails to provide the ability to run Outlook (the single most important program that should work on Wine). Yes, Outlook 97 works. Nobody wants to run Outlook 97, OK? It's nearly a decade old, for crying out loud.

So, in my opinion, Linux will never be mainstream until Evolution or some other email client offers full-fledged Exchange compatibility via a real MAPI connection (not OWA) with all the same features and functionality of the current (or next-closest-to-current) version of Outlook.

It baffles me as to why more attention isn't paid to this issue. Full Exchange compatibility from the Linux desktop would go a long way toward more organizations -- and therefore home users -- adopting Linux. And to those conspiracy theorists who say that home users don't use Linux because Microsoft strongarms OEMs and retailers into selling only Windows computers, I say this: OEMs and retailers sell Windows PCs because most consumers would not buy a Linux computer, for the reasons I've already stated.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Luxeon Integration- -luxeon optics

Opto Technology designs custom light engines using the Luxeon high performance LED products by incorporating optics, electronics and thermal heat sinks.



Opto Technology core competency is managing LED light output by designing efficient optics and thermal heat sinks with the goal of minimizing the number of LEDs necessary to meet the light requirements.



If you have questions about whether the technology is right for you, Opto Technology is well equipped to answer these questions. We can provide you with the necessary technical and financial information to help you make this decision.









Capabilities



Complete light engines / LED modules

(mechanical, optical, thermal, electrical) Extensive LED knowledge Optical design / modeling (visit our optics page for more information) Thermal design and electrical design Optical testing / sorting / filtering

Optical Platforms









Collimating Optics

Omni-directional Optics

Linear/Rectangular Optics

Fiber optic coupling and light fiber Illumination



This optical capability, along with strong LED expertise, allows Opto Technology to design high performance light engines which incorporate LEDs, optics, thermal heat sinks and electronics.











Back up

Products





Opto Technology designs and manufactures both standard and custom products. Most of our designs are custom because this provides our customers a competitive advantage in the marketplace when introducing Led technology.

Standard products include the Endura Bright™ series of Led based MR-16’s. The Endura Bright™ series is pin for pin compatible with a tungsten halogen MR-16 but offers all the advantages of LED technology (longer life, increased durability, energy savings, and lower heat dissipation). The Endura Bright™ series comes in all the primary LED colors, three power levels (1, 2, 5 watt outputs) and three viewing angles (10, 20 and 30 degrees).





Endura Bright™



Markets and Applications



Illumination Marine Navigational Lighting Airfield Lighting Obstruction Lighting Light Fiber Illumination Medical Diagnostic Instrumentation