2008年7月8日

华硕键盘FN故障,无法调节亮度。另类解决办法。

前天一边Dota一边喝功夫茶,不小心喂了本本几滴。曾经无数次地指导过菜鸟们如何处理键盘进水,没想到这次轮到我了。开始我居然还没发觉,直到Dota里面怎么都选不中英雄,才意识到进水了--囧。立马,电脑倒过来,关机、取出电池---dota可耻的秒了,可惜了我的虎妞呀。

While N 小时后,开机,测试一遍,F3,F4,F5挂掉了。。。。。。反正平常也没有用,偶尔用之也能唤出屏幕键盘。若干天后,开电影,用FN+F6把屏幕亮度调到了最亮....杯具出现了,因为F5挂掉,再也没办法把亮度调回来。熬到凌晨,尝试了N 多方法后,终于找到了华硕的另类解决方法。总结如下:

失败 1,  试图使用按键精灵修改键盘,发现无法实现FN的组合.....因为找不到FN对应的键值,google传说FN是通过跟某个数运算,结果如果返回是255,就产生fn对应的中断........不求甚解,盯着汽车大灯一样的屏幕,估计你也没有那个心情再去探究他对应的是哪个了吧。

失败 2,试图修改注册表,把F5映射到F6。相当简单.......可是按下FN之后产生的中断告诉了电脑,F6永远是F6.....F5永远是F5......至于台湾的F4太扯了---杯具
(华硕键盘的FN组合,估计是在BIOS级别实现了吧,因为只要加电这些组合键就有作用。证据 1 ,BIOS画面,可以使用组合键。2,在没有图形界面的linux里面同样能调节亮度。想到这里,估计这台本本是基本告别Linux了。)

失败 3,掰开键盘,擦擦???估计薄膜那层挂了,,,又一次杯具。而且身边没有酒精、没有镊子、仅有钥匙5把,以及大得可以切苹果的剪刀一把。

失败 4,BIOS里面竟然无亮度设置。

未尝试的计划 5,弄一个外置的usb键盘,带fn键的。。。。几十大元呀,不到万不得还是不花钱好。小弟每个月工资1500,不包吃不包住的喔。------原来我就是个杯具。

未尝试的计划 6,华硕售后。2010年的第一天,没有人工作滴。他们终于洗具了一把。
..............................................若干小时之后,终于,我的洗具出现了。

华硕的本本有一个Power4 Gear的电源管理工具,能够设置几个不同本本使用状态,控制cpu,屏幕亮度,待机时间等等。为了我的开机进程,一般都是一概不自己启动,禁止掉了。这次没想到成了我的救星。里面可以设置屏幕的亮度,不过得这样操作。
1,装上电池,2,拔掉外接电源(此时才能设置屏幕亮度)3,设置一个最低的亮度,4,直接退出Power4 Gear,亮度此时就不会变了,5,接回外接电源。再用fn+f6,调到自己合适的亮度。
The End Goto 洗具

失败 5,

posted @ 2010-01-01 12:22 Jarod.cn.LuLuLife 阅读(3533) | 评论 (0)编辑 收藏

linux file system

Linux各种文件系统(ext3,ReiserFS,jfs,xfs)的性能
2006-07-28 08:55
以下文章是我自己翻译的,后面有英文的原文。不当之处,敬请指教.
应该不是太新的文章,但是我我是2006-07-12的上午才看到的。哎........

2006-07-12 15:00 翻译完成
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
肠子都悔青了,昨天刚刚新加的硬盘上面的文件系统还是被我搞成了ext3。如果我能造一天注意到这篇文章的话........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Debian Administration
System Administration Tips and Resources

现在还可以得到的许多Linux filesystems 比较,但是他们中大多数是古老的,基于为人任务的或者在更老的情况下完成。 这篇基准测试文基于与老一代的适合一台文件服务器的11项硬件(奔腾II/III,EIDE硬盘)。

从最初编制到出版,文章已经产生许多变化,意见和建议改进。我目前正努力进行一些新的试验。(回答在原文范围的问题)。

结果将在大约在(2006年5月8日)可提供


汉斯

为什么要做基准测试?

我发现quantitative and reproductible benchmark基准使用2.6.x kernel。

Benoit在2003年在有512 MB RAM 的PIII 500服务器上使用大文件(1 + GB)实现12次试验。 这次试验信息十分丰富,但是结果对2.6.x kernel开始,主要适用于底座, 专门操作大的锉(例如,多媒体,科学,数据库)。

Piszcz 在2006年实现21项任务(有768 MB RAM 和一个400GBEIDE-133硬盘在PIII-500 模拟多种文件操作)。到目前为止,这测试看起来是在2.6.x kernel上的最全面的工作。 但是, 很多任务是人造的(例如, 复制和删除10,000个空目录,新建10,000个文件,递归分割文件),把这些结论应用到现实世界可能是无意义的。

因此, 这里测试的基准的目标是验证一些Piszcz(2006)的结论, 通过专门应用于现实世界在小型企业文件服务器(看见任务描述)里找到。

测试基础

    * Hardware Processor : Intel Celeron 533
    * RAM : 512MB RAM PC100
    * Motherboard : ASUS P2B
    * Hard drive : WD Caviar SE 160GB (EIDE 100, 7200 RPM, 8MB Cache)
    * Controller : ATA/133 PCI (Silicon Image)

    * OS Debian Etch (kernel 2.6.15), distribution upgraded on April 18, 2006
    * All optional daemons killed (cron,ssh,saMBa,etc.)

    * Filesystems Ext3 (e2fsprogs 1.38)
    * ReiserFS (reiserfsprogs 1.3.6.19)
    * JFS (jfsutils 1.1.8)
    * XFS (xfsprogs 2.7.14)

选择的测试任务描述

*在一个大文件(ISO 镜像文件,700 MB)的从第2个磁盘复制到这个试验磁盘
*再从在另一个位置再复制这个 ISO 一次
*删除这个ISO 的两个副本

*操作一文件树(有7500 文件,900 目录,1.9GB),从第2 磁盘复制到这个试验磁盘
*再从在另一个位置再复制这个文件树 一次
*删除这个文件树的两个副本

*用递归的方法遍历文件树目录和文件树的全部内容,复制到这个试验磁盘
*匹配通配符,在文件树查找具体的文件

*用(mkfs) 建立filesystem(全部FS都使用默认值)
*mount  filesystem
*Umount filesystem

上述11项任务(从建立filesystem到umounting filesystem)的顺序,编写为Bash script运行完成3 次(报告平均成绩)。 每个顺序花费大约7分种,完成任务的时间用秒计算,  GNU time utility (version 1.7) 记录任务时的CPU 的利用百分比。

结果

分区能力

(在filesystem 创造之后)初始化分区并重新划分block的过程里,Ext3有最差的初始利用率(92.77%), 其它的filesystem 几乎可是使用全部的容量(ReiserFS = 99.83%,JFS = 99.82%,XFS = 99.95%)。
结论: 为了使用你的分区的的最大容量,选择ReiserFS,JFS或者XFS。

建立文件系统,mount和unmounting

在20GB的分区创造filesystem测试,划分为Ext3带14.7秒, 与为相比其他filesystem多2秒或更少。(ReiserFS = 2.2,JFS = 1.3,XFS = 0.7)。

不过,挂载ReiserFS 要比其他的FS多花费5-15倍时间(2.3秒)(Ext3 = 0.2, JFS = 0.2, XFS = 0.5),umount以及要比其他的FS多花费2 倍时间(0.4秒)。

所有的FS都花费差不多CPU占用来创建FS(59%(ReiserFS) -74%(JFS)),挂载FS(在6和9%之间)。 不过,Ext3 和XFS多用2倍的CPU占用 给umount(37% 和45%), ReiserFS和JFS(14% 和27%)。
结论: 对创建FS性能和mounting/unmounting来说,选择JFS或者XFS。

大文件操作性能(ISO image,700 MB)

    把大文件复制到Ext3(38.2秒)和ReiserFS(41.8), 要比JFS和XFS(35.1和34.8)需要更多时间。使用XFS有助于提高在相同的磁盘上复制相同的文件(XFS=33.1,Ext3 = 37.3,JFS = 39.4,ReiserFS = 43.9)相比。 在JFS和XFS上删除那些ISO 大约要快100 倍(0.02秒),(ReiserFS1.5秒,Ext32.5秒)!所有FS复制时的CPU利用(在46和51%之间),再复制时(在38%到50%之间)。当其他FS使用大约10%时,ReiserFS使用49%的CPU。 比他FS大约少5到10%),JFS使用较少的CPU。
结论: 对大文件操作性能来说,最好选择JFS或者XFS。 如果你需要使CPU利用减到最小,更推荐JFS。


目录树(7500个文件,900份目录,1.9GB)的操作

    最初复制目录树时,Ext3(158.3秒)和XFS(166.1秒)更迅速, ReiserFS和JFS(172.1和180.1)。在第二次复制的时候有相似的结果。(Ext3=120秒,XFS = 135.2,ReiserFS = 136.9 和JFS = 151)。但是, 移动目录树时Ext3(22秒)相比ReiserFS(8.2秒, XFS(10.5秒)和JFS(12.5秒))大约多2倍时间!所有FS在复制和再复制目录树时都使用较多的CPU (复制在27和36%之间),(再复制在29%-JFS和45%-ReiserFS之间)。

    令人吃惊,ReiserFS 和XFS使用更多的CPU 删除目录树(86% 和65%), 而其他FS只使用大约15%的(Ext3和JFS)。再次,与任何其他FS相比较,JFS的明显使用较少CPU。 当有较多的数量较小页面时适合ReiserFS。这个差别在目录树的再复制和移动里的ReiserFS将有更高的速度。
    结论:对在大容量的目录树操作来说,选择Ext3或者XFS。 来自其他作者的基准测试已经证明如果使用ReiserFS,对大量的小文件更为合适。但是,目前包括各种各样尺寸(10KB在5 MB)数千文件的目录树操作上,建议使用Ext3或者XFS可能获得更好的性能。如果JFS的CPU占用减到最小,这种FS带着相当高的性能。

目录列表和文件查找

     递归显示目录的目录列表,ReiserFS(1.4秒)和XFS更迅速的1.8), Ext3和JFS(2.5和3.1)。文件查找有着相同的结果。在文件查找项目, ReiserFS(0.8秒)相比XFS(2.8)和Ext3(4.6秒)和JFS(5秒)更迅速。 Ext3和JFS有更好CPU占用:目录列表(35%),文件查找(6%)。 XFS目录列表(70%)使用更多的CPU,文件查找(10%)。 ReiserFS 看起来是占用CPU最多的FS,目录列表71%,文件查找36% 。
结论: 结果表明那, 对于这些CPU占用任务来说,(ext3和JFS)filesystems 能更少的使用CPU的。 XFS作为好备选,带有相对适中的性能和CPU的占用。

总的结论

这些结果从Piszcz(2006)关于分解的Ext3,ReiserFS的磁盘能力报告一样。 这两篇文章两篇已经显示JFS是最低的CPU利用的FS。 最后,这份报告看起来没有显示出ReiserFS的high page faults activity 

由于一个分区只能有一个filesystem,认识每种filesystem的优缺点很重要。如果,以这篇文章的全部测试为基准, XFS看起来是家庭或者小型企业最适合的应用于文件服务器的filesystem:

*它使用你的服务器硬盘(s)的拥有最大的容量
*创建FS,mount和unmount很迅速
*操作大文件最迅速的FS(>500 MB)
*这FS得第二名地方给经营关于许多在适度尺寸文件和目录小
*在CPU占用和目录列表或者文件搜寻性能之间比较平衡,
*没有最小CPU要求,老一代硬件也可十分接受

Piszcz(2006)当时没有明确推荐XFS,他只是说:"就个人来说,我仍然愿意选择同时具备性能和可伸缩性的XFS"。 现在我只能支持这个结论。

参考

贝努瓦,M.(2003)。 Linux 文件系统基准。

Piszcz,J.(2006)。 基准问题测试Filesystems第二部分。 Linux Gazette, 122 (January 2006)。


以下是原文
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Debian Administration
System Administration Tips and Resources
[ About | Archive | FAQ | Hall of Fame | Search | Tagged Articles |
Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch


There are a lot of Linux filesystems comparisons available but most of them are anecdotal, based on artificial tasks or completed under older kernels. This benchmark essay is based on 11 real-world tasks appropriate for a file server with older generation hardware (Pentium II/III, EIDE hard-drive).

Since its initial publication, this article has generated
a lot of questions, comments and suggestions to improve it.
Consequently, I'm currently working hard on a new batch of tests
to answer as many questions as possible (within the original scope
of the article).

Results will be available in about two weeks (May 8, 2006)

Many thanks for your interest and keep in touch with
Debian-Administration.org!

Hans

Why another benchmark test?

I found two quantitative and reproductible benchmark testing studies using the 2.6.x kernel (see References). Benoit (2003) implemented 12 tests using large files (1+ GB) on a Pentium II 500 server with 512MB RAM. This test was quite informative but results are beginning to aged (kernel 2.6.0) and mostly applied to settings which manipulate exclusively large files (e.g., multimedia, scientific, databases).

Piszcz (2006) implemented 21 tasks simulating a variety of file operations on a PIII-500 with 768MB RAM and a 400GB EIDE-133 hard disk. To date, this testing appears to be the most comprehensive work on the 2.6 kernel. However, since many tasks were "artificial" (e.g., copying and removing 10 000 empty directories, touching 10 000 files, splitting files recursively), it may be difficult to transfer some conclusions to real-world settings.

Thus, the objective of the present benchmark testing is to complete some Piszcz (2006) conclusions, by focusing exclusively on real-world operations found in small-business file servers (see Tasks description).

Test settings

    * Hardware Processor : Intel Celeron 533
    * RAM : 512MB RAM PC100
    * Motherboard : ASUS P2B
    * Hard drive : WD Caviar SE 160GB (EIDE 100, 7200 RPM, 8MB Cache)
    * Controller : ATA/133 PCI (Silicon Image)

    * OS Debian Etch (kernel 2.6.15), distribution upgraded on April 18, 2006
    * All optional daemons killed (cron,ssh,saMBa,etc.)

    * Filesystems Ext3 (e2fsprogs 1.38)
    * ReiserFS (reiserfsprogs 1.3.6.19)
    * JFS (jfsutils 1.1.8)
    * XFS (xfsprogs 2.7.14)

Description of selected tasks

    * Operations on a large file (ISO image, 700MB) Copy ISO from a second disk to the test disk
    * Recopy ISO in another location on the test disk
    * Remove both copies of ISO

    * Operations on a file tree (7500 files, 900 directories, 1.9GB) Copy file tree from a second disk to the test disk
    * Recopy file tree in another location on the test disk
    * Remove both copies of file tree

    * Operations into the file tree List recursively all contents of the file tree and save it on the test disk
    * Find files matching a specific wildcard into the file tree

    * Operations on the file system Creation of the filesystem (mkfs) (all FS were created with default values)
    * Mount filesystem
    * Umount filesystem

The sequence of 11 tasks (from creation of FS to umounting FS) was run as a Bash script which was completed three times (the average is reported). Each sequence takes about 7 min. Time to complete task (in secs), percentage of CPU dedicated to task and number of major/minor page faults during task were computed by the GNU time utility (version 1.7).

RESULTS

Partition capacity

Initial (after filesystem creation) and residual (after removal of all files) partition capacity was computed as the ratio of number of available blocks by number of blocks on the partition. Ext3 has the worst inital capacity (92.77%), while others FS preserve almost full partition capacity (ReiserFS = 99.83%, JFS = 99.82%, XFS = 99.95%). Interestingly, the residual capacity of Ext3 and ReiserFS was identical to the initial, while JFS and XFS lost about 0.02% of their partition capacity, suggesting that these FS can dynamically grow but do not completely return to their inital state (and size) after file removal.
Conclusion : To use the maximum of your partition capacity, choose ReiserFS, JFS or XFS.

File system creation, mounting and unmounting

The creation of FS on the 20GB test partition took 14.7 secs for Ext3, compared to 2 secs or less for other FS (ReiserFS = 2.2, JFS = 1.3, XFS = 0.7). However, the ReiserFS took 5 to 15 times longer to mount the FS (2.3 secs) when compared to other FS (Ext3 = 0.2, JFS = 0.2, XFS = 0.5), and also 2 times longer to umount the FS (0.4 sec). All FS took comparable amounts of CPU to create FS (between 59% - ReiserFS and 74% - JFS) and to mount FS (between 6 and 9%). However, Ex3 and XFS took about 2 times more CPU to umount (37% and 45%), compared to ReiserFS and JFS (14% and 27%).
Conclusion : For quick FS creation and mounting/unmounting, choose JFS or XFS.

Operations on a large file (ISO image, 700MB)

The initial copy of the large file took longer on Ext3 (38.2 secs) and ReiserFS (41.8) when compared to JFS and XFS (35.1 and 34.8). The recopy on the same disk advantaged the XFS (33.1 secs), when compared to other FS (Ext3 = 37.3, JFS = 39.4, ReiserFS = 43.9). The ISO removal was about 100 times faster on JFS and XFS (0.02 sec for both), compared to 1.5 sec for ReiserFS and 2.5 sec for Ext3! All FS took comparable amounts of CPU to copy (between 46 and 51%) and to recopy ISO (between 38% to 50%). The ReiserFS used 49% of CPU to remove ISO, when other FS used about 10%. There was a clear trend of JFS to use less CPU than any other FS (about 5 to 10% less). The number of minor page faults was quite similar between FS (ranging from 600 - XFS to 661 - ReiserFS).
Conclusion : For quick operations on large files, choose JFS or XFS. If you need to minimize CPU usage, prefer JFS.

Operations on a file tree (7500 files, 900 directories, 1.9GB)

The initial copy of the tree was quicker for Ext3 (158.3 secs) and XFS (166.1) when compared to ReiserFS and JFS (172.1 and 180.1). Similar results were observed during the recopy on the same disk, which advantaged the Ext3 (120 secs) compared to other FS (XFS = 135.2, ReiserFS = 136.9 and JFS = 151). However, the tree removal was about 2 times longer for Ext3 (22 secs) when compared to ReiserFS (8.2 secs), XFS (10.5 secs) and JFS (12.5 secs)! All FS took comparable amounts of CPU to copy (between 27 and 36%) and to recopy the file tree (between 29% - JFS and 45% - ReiserFS). Surprisingly, the ReiserFS and the XFS used significantly more CPU to remove file tree (86% and 65%) when other FS used about 15% (Ext3 and JFS). Again, there was a clear trend of JFS to use less CPU than any other FS. The number of minor page faults was significantly higher for ReiserFS (total = 5843) when compared to other FS (1400 to 1490). This difference appears to come from a higher rate (5 to 20 times) of page faults for ReiserFS in recopy and removal of file tree.
Conclusion : For quick operations on large file tree, choose Ext3 or XFS. Benchmarks from other authors have supported the use of ReiserFS for operations on large number of small files. However, the present results on a tree comprising thousands of files of various size (10KB to 5MB) suggest than Ext3 or XFS may be more appropriate for real-world file server operations. Even if JFS minimize CPU usage, it should be noted that this FS comes with significantly higher latency for large file tree operations.

Directory listing and file search into the previous file tree

The complete (recursive) directory listing of the tree was quicker for ReiserFS (1.4 secs) and XFS (1.8) when compared to Ext3 and JFS (2.5 and 3.1). Similar results were observed during the file search, where ReiserFS (0.8 sec) and XFS (2.8) yielded quicker results compared to Ext3 (4.6 secs) and JFS (5 secs). Ext3 and JFS took comparable amounts of CPU for directory listing (35%) and file search (6%). XFS took more CPU for directory listing (70%) but comparable amount for file search (10%). ReiserFS appears to be the most CPU-intensive FS, with 71% for directory listing and 36% for file search. Again, the number of minor page faults was 3 times higher for ReiserFS (total = 1991) when compared to other FS (704 to 712).
Conclusion : Results suggest that, for these tasks, filesystems can be regrouped as (a) quick and more CPU-intensive (ReiserFS and XFS) or (b) slower but less CPU-intensive (ext3 and JFS). XFS appears as a good compromise, with relatively quick results, moderate usage of CPU and acceptable rate of page faults.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

These results replicate previous observations from Piszcz (2006) about reduced disk capacity of Ext3, longer mount time of ReiserFS and longer FS creation of Ext3. Moreover, like this report, both reviews have observed that JFS is the lowest CPU-usage FS. Finally, this report appeared to be the first to show the high page faults activity of ReiserFS on most usual file operations.

While recognizing the relative merits of each filesystem, only one filesystem can be install for each partition/disk. Based on all testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or small-business needs :

    * It uses the maximum capacity of your server hard disk(s)
    * It is the quickest FS to create, mount and unmount
    * It is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB)
    * This FS gets a good second place for operations on a large number of small to moderate-size files and directories
    * It constitutes a good CPU vs time compromise for large directory listing or file search
    * It is not the least CPU demanding FS but its use of system ressources is quite acceptable for older generation hardware

While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and scalability". I can only support this conclusion.

References

Benoit, M. (2003). Linux File System Benchmarks.

Piszcz, J. (2006). Benchmarking Filesystems Part II. Linux Gazette, 122 (January 2006).

posted @ 2008-10-05 16:49 Jarod.cn.LuLuLife 阅读(342) | 评论 (0)编辑 收藏

Discuz论坛的OpenID革命?

OpenID对国内用户也许还是一个非常陌生的字眼,但是它在国外已经成熟应用了很多年了。就在不久前goolge、yahoo、微软、ibm纷纷都开始支持openid协议了。

openid到底是什么?openid将带来新的互联网革命吗?

OpenID解决了一个帐户登录不同网站的难题,用户不用再记住不同的帐户密码,只需要一个openid帐号就能随意登录openid支持的网站。
它本质上能够成为整个互联网的通行证。而与以前的通行证不同之处在于,它是一个不属于任何组织的。它不属于任何人,没人有能够垄断openid。当然能够优秀服务的提供商可能成为大家首选的注册点。但是在openid协议中,用户的openid使用绝对不会受制于任何一家openid帐号提供商。(更多资料能“google之”)
有理由相信,openid的推广将带来的不仅仅是革命了。

目前openidoor.com已经完成了Discuz论坛的OpenID登录插件开发。

OpenID在论坛使用意味着OpenID在中国国内的推广又有了新的进展。而这次全系列的支持(4.0--6.1)意味着大中型论坛都有可能应用。大型论坛跟国际接轨,进一步巩固自己的地位。而小论坛则使用用户登录更为友好,突然拥有了上千万、上亿的openid用户不得不说人人都将获得新的机会。因为人们能够更加随意地自由地登录你的论坛,体验你的论坛的特色服务。

目前已经更新到了1.2的版本,测试也在陆续进行中。有兴趣赶快去试试吧~~

discuz官网的论坛中的发布地址:

http://www.discuz.net/thread-994518-1-1.html

在他们自己的网站也能下载到:

http://www.openidoor.com/remository.html

另外作者还提供了一个演示地址,可以让大家体验一下openid的使用。
http://www.openidoor.com/discuz_6.0

更多资料可以goolge、百度关键字:“Openid”
或者参看他们的网站介绍
http://www.openidoor.com

posted @ 2008-07-23 15:51 Jarod.cn.LuLuLife 阅读(628) | 评论 (0)编辑 收藏

windows+PHP+apache+netbeans6.5安装配置xdebug~~~

下载相应版本:http://pecl4win.php.net/ext.php/php_xdebug.dll

放在某个目录下,例如下面的:
c:/xdebug/php_xdebug-2.0.2-5.2.5.dll

然后在php的配置文件php.ini的末尾加入下面两行
(注意斜杠的方向啦)
(如果开启了zend,要关掉之)

zend_extension_ts="c:/xdebug/php_xdebug-2.0.2-5.2.5.dll"
xdebug.remote_enable=1

posted @ 2008-07-21 18:49 Jarod.cn.LuLuLife 阅读(1290) | 评论 (2)编辑 收藏

对我来说OpenID是什么?(白菜flash,第二篇)

上次简单介绍了OpenID,估计很多人还是弄不明白,下面做了一个flash,依次演示了注册、使用。

以下flash来自:http://www.openidoor.com

注册中使用的是著名的OpenID提供商myopenid的网站。

后面的使用演示,一个是登陆网站、一个是在google的blog留言~~




posted @ 2008-07-10 08:53 Jarod.cn.LuLuLife 阅读(239) | 评论 (0)编辑 收藏

国内的OpenID推广、服务商。

http://www.openidoor.cn/

http://www.openidoor.com
  • 热衷于搜集各个提供商和支持站点的链接,整理发布OpenID公共资源,推广OpenID。

  • 测试提供商和支持站点的兼容性,帮助各站点实现严格的OpenID协议,保证用户在各站点顺利使用OpenID登录。

  • 旨在向客户提供专业、成熟的OpenID升级、部署服务,使客户的站点支持OpenID登录,让客户站点更便捷,更吸引用户



posted @ 2008-07-08 20:56 Jarod.cn.LuLuLife 阅读(570) | 评论 (0)编辑 收藏

<2008年7月>
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789

导航

统计

公告

我的知识Blog!

常用链接

留言簿(3)

随笔档案

文章档案

Image

搜索

最新评论

阅读排行榜

评论排行榜