Here's one (and I have the SmartQ7 model): http://www.smartdevices.com.cn/

Where to purchase: http://en.smartdevices.com.cn/Buy/

I'm not in China, Singapore, or "Hongkong".

Sorry. I should have specified "in the US." How about this: when I can get one at Best Buy, THEN post the story.

If you had cared to search before you posted... http://www.allpmp.com/

Here's one (and I have the SmartQ7 model): http://www.smartdevices.com.cn/

Nice and cheap.

Most (if not all) of those ARM devices have proprietary graphics cards, so the only way to maintain our software freedom is to use framebuffer (when possible at all).

It'll mean nothing [to dominate the ARM devices market] if our software freedom has bow before the shackles of a few companies.

Bada is a GNU/Linux, running E17. Anyone used to program with EFL already heard the news a while ago, and will be able to recognize familiar Elementary elements in some of the screenshots.

They are zip files. I've used several times plain ZIP to change jar files. No problem at all. Since you said that, are you a Java developer? Seems so...

Kill X, login in the console, rmmod the kernel module, insmod the new one, start X.

Voit-lá, no reboot for upgrade of graphics card driver.

How come whenever software patent defenders are challenged on the merits of software patents, they *only* come up with hardware as an excuse?

Get the &"%# off software, you leeches.

The data retention directive specifically says they must retain elements that identify the origin and the destination.

Please read it. The level of fachism scares me.

From what they demand to storing URLs, is merely a matter of semantics, and the danger of that being done was predicted long before the directive was approved.

The Data Retention Directive is the equivalente to having a spy per citizen, noting down who he talks with, where and for how long.

Would you accept this in real life? No. Why do you accept it online?

Repeal the Data Retention directive now!

You're right that you don't have to implement an idea to patent it. But your patent still only covers such an implementation, even if it's never done.

It totally begs the question: how is that a benefit to society?

What you write in software is the expression of one idea in a certain language.

You don't "invent" software, software has been invented many eons ago when living beings got brains.

What software patents cover is the concept. If they covered a specific implementation, they would provide a worse legal environment than the copyright, in the point of view of the authors, for it would last many, many years less.

And as anyone who wrote software can tell you, ideas are a dime a dozen, the devil is in the details. It's the expression that counts in software, and not the concept.

Well, suppose you're selling GNU/Linux desktops. Now to make your bidding for a public tender in Portugal you need to NOT USE your own dogfood?

You need to buy from your competitors in order to compete against them?

Seriously folks, this is a REAL issue (plus, this mess was paid with my taxes, I'll have to demand a refund).

Since you got moderated to "insightful" and I don't have moderation points in this article, I'll have to take the bait:

the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL

They're both just as Free Software. Claiming one is "more free" than the other, is a proof that you're confusing issues and still have something to learn about Free Software licensing, because for instance...

in that you can do anything you want with it

No, you can't. You can't claim you're the author, for instance. Actually, it's very hard to find a popular license where you can do that. In some jurisdictions, it is even legally impossible to do so.

including closing it if you are so inclined.

That you can, and it is a crying shame.

Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.

Funny you should say that, since your comment is quite philosophically rabid, like the majority of the GPL haters club.

Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?

No Free Software license mandates publishing. The GNU GPL in particular only mandates that IF AND ONLY IF you publish, then you must provide the same rights and obligations (in a very broad overview, read the text for the gory details) you got when you got a copy of said software.

Besides, when you do publish in a license like Apache's, Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work and it is very likely to do so.

Indeed it has done so, albeit not Apache, but a somewhat similar but quite shorter license, previously.