如果你也跟我一樣升級了 Mac OS X 到 10.9.1 版然後發現 Google 雲端硬碟軟體有跳出「請授予 Google 雲端硬碟權限以完成更新」的驚嘆號訊息的話，請確定一下你是不是正在使用 Google 雲端硬碟軟體 1.13 版。如果是的話，你可以依照以下任一種方式來解決這個問題：
1. 關閉 Google 雲端硬碟軟體之後在 Mac 命令列輸入以下指令來重新啟動它：
"/Applications/Google Drive.app/Contents/MacOS/Google Drive" --overlays_enabled_finder_versions="10.9.1"
然後到 Mac 系統提示列拉下已經啟動的 Google 雲端軟體選單，選擇「更新 Google 雲端硬碟」，此時會要求你輸入你在 Mac 使用的帳號密碼，輸入後等軟體的系統列圖示更新狀態完畢，然後退出 Google 雲端軟體再等 10 秒以後重新啟動它，如果看到它的系統列圖示更新正常就代表已經更新完成。
這個方法是由 Google 的 +Rishi Sharma 在 Google Drive 產品論壇中提供的：
http://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/UmV6R9EXWyE/EEWc_zgjtrEJ
2. 或將 Google 雲端硬碟軟體的版本退回至 1.12 版，你會發現它不用更新也可以運作正常。
3. 不理它的驚嘆號訊息，直接等 Google 更新新版軟體，因為它的同步檔案功能是正常的，只是有個驚嘆號訊息在那邊很礙眼而已。
2013年12月17日 星期二
2013年7月26日 星期五
Google Chromecast, Miracast 與 HTC MediaLink HD
Google Chromecast 這隻 HDMI dongle 其實比較接近 HTC 出的 MediaLink HD，主要是拿來播放手機、平板及電腦等 3C 設備上的串流影片使用。它跟傳送 3C 設備使用畫面到螢幕上的 Miracast 技術不一樣的是它並不是直接從 3C 設備傳送影音串流資料到 Chromecast (所以它並沒有像 Miracast 一樣傳送設備使用畫面到 Chromecast 上)，而是讓 Chromecast 直接跟網路上的影音串流來源 (如 YouTube) 去要影音串流資料來在 Chromecast 上播放，所以它能做到不影響 3C 設備的效能，也能在 Chromecast 播放後讓 3C 設備去做其它事 (現在的 HTC MediaLink HD 也是一樣的原理)。
不過 Google Chromecast 比 HTC MediaLink HD 更有優勢的地方在於，1. Chromecast 可以同時對應多台不同平台的設備，2. Chromecast 可以有自訂播放影片列表來依序播放，以及 3. Chromecast 的價格不到 MediaLink HD 的一半 (如果扣掉三個月 Netflix 訂閱費用 24 美金的話，它 11 美金的價格其實只有 MediaLink HD 的七分之一)。
Google Chromecast 雖然不是用 Android OS 但是它內建簡化版的 Chrome OS，所以它應該是可以自動更新系統的 (Chrome OS 的優點之一)。
我目前是已經有 MediaLink HD 了，不過如果可以入手一隻 Chromecast 應該也不錯！ :)
2009年11月19日 星期四
Android Developer Phone 2 now is out
The famous Google Ion phone now is available to Android developers as Android Developer Phone 2:
However, the Google Ion logo is gone. Now you can see the purchase option for Android Developer Phones here:
To purchase the phone you must be a registered Android developer on the Android Market website, so you would need USD 25 + USD 399 + shipping fee to get the phone.
It's a 32B phone, which is the European / United States version of HTC Magic, not a 32A phone as the Asian version. That means it has less ROM as 192 MB, not 288 MB.
On the purchase page it states that you can rebuild the Android system and flash to the device, but it seems the boot loader of the device is still a locked version? Why I said this? See the Google Ion page on the HTC website, it said the device is coming with "hboot 1.33.3004 (locked)". Or maybe the hboot on ADP2 is unlocked already? If you know the answer, please let me know. :)
However, the Google Ion logo is gone. Now you can see the purchase option for Android Developer Phones here:
To purchase the phone you must be a registered Android developer on the Android Market website, so you would need USD 25 + USD 399 + shipping fee to get the phone.
It's a 32B phone, which is the European / United States version of HTC Magic, not a 32A phone as the Asian version. That means it has less ROM as 192 MB, not 288 MB.
On the purchase page it states that you can rebuild the Android system and flash to the device, but it seems the boot loader of the device is still a locked version? Why I said this? See the Google Ion page on the HTC website, it said the device is coming with "hboot 1.33.3004 (locked)". Or maybe the hboot on ADP2 is unlocked already? If you know the answer, please let me know. :)
2009年10月3日 星期六
My opinion on the Google Cease-and-Desist letter
Recently people are discussing about the Google CnD letter sent to Cyanogen to stop the distribution of Google closed-source apps. The reason most people who do not agree with Google is that Cyanogen only made Android ROMs for Google Experience Phone (GEP), which already have Google closed-source apps in it. However, I have a different view on this.
First, I think no matter Google closed-source apps (like Android Market or Gmail) or open-source projects (like Android), they are all originally developed (and owned) by Google. Google just choose to release Android in Apache License so people can use (and modify) them to have a better platform. However, Google did not choice to release Android Market / Gmail as open-source apps so they still have the rights for these apps to decide who can use (and redistribute) them.
Second, GEP does have Google closed-source apps in it. However, the manufacturer of GEP have got the license from Google to distribute the Google closed-source apps, but Cyanogen does not. And to say the Cyanogen ROMs are only made for GEP is non-sense because it only happen in good-will. Any hackers can get the Google closed-source apps from the ROM to redistribute them again. If that happens (and do happened), then it harms the rights that Google has. If Cyanogen has made some closed-source apps by himself and put them in his Android ROMs to redistribute, I would not say it's not right and will be happy to see this because he is the owner of the apps and his decision might benefit people who have the ROM. But if he puts some apps that are not made by himself into his ROM and does not have the agreement to authorize such things, then I cannot see why it's wrong for Google to send the CnD letter.
I still don't understand why people are still arguing on this. Is it not so simple?
First, I think no matter Google closed-source apps (like Android Market or Gmail) or open-source projects (like Android), they are all originally developed (and owned) by Google. Google just choose to release Android in Apache License so people can use (and modify) them to have a better platform. However, Google did not choice to release Android Market / Gmail as open-source apps so they still have the rights for these apps to decide who can use (and redistribute) them.
Second, GEP does have Google closed-source apps in it. However, the manufacturer of GEP have got the license from Google to distribute the Google closed-source apps, but Cyanogen does not. And to say the Cyanogen ROMs are only made for GEP is non-sense because it only happen in good-will. Any hackers can get the Google closed-source apps from the ROM to redistribute them again. If that happens (and do happened), then it harms the rights that Google has. If Cyanogen has made some closed-source apps by himself and put them in his Android ROMs to redistribute, I would not say it's not right and will be happy to see this because he is the owner of the apps and his decision might benefit people who have the ROM. But if he puts some apps that are not made by himself into his ROM and does not have the agreement to authorize such things, then I cannot see why it's wrong for Google to send the CnD letter.
I still don't understand why people are still arguing on this. Is it not so simple?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)