Request for Comments: Keeping the OS and Data on phsyically seperated drives

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Oren Beck <orenbeck at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a request for comment on a basic hardware and software
>  assignment method.
>
>  The simplest minimal applied version would be master drive OS and
>  slave drive bearing data.
>
>  The next higher levels would include replicated data drives.
>  Not needfully in the same machine or even at the same site.

I'd like to propose a Request for Comments where we talk about moving
from a bus-specific input device specification (AT and PS2  for
keyboards, and PS2 for mice) to a more device generic input bus model
(USB for both).  I'd think that the folks in KCLUG can come up with
some really interesting discussion with regards to  multi-input device
bus channels in the modern PC under recent distributions of Linux.

For example:

* In doing away with input device specific data input channels, do we
benefit from decreasing the physical peripheral input hardware
footprint on the real computing device?

* Does this translate into optimal efficiency at the filesystem level
by negating the necessity of files in the pseudo-device directory
hierarchy such as /dev/psaux?

* Does a single specification for hardware peripheral data input
methods like USB open up possibilities like daisy chaining physical
input methodologies into discrete time-ordered functional equivalents
in a data centric computing environment?  For example, allowing a
non-interrupt driven means of obtaining non-keyboard/mouse input in
the form of webcams, scanners, and the like?

* If device input methodologies are consolidated into a single
specification, can we do innovative things like plug our mouse into
the other end of our keyboard, and then plug the entire keyboard/mouse
user input device into a single physical port on our computing system?

Discuss!

-- 
Chris