I have been gently suggesting a new practice. Making it routine to keep the Non-OS data on a separate drive from the OS. Bluntly stating the two bedrock facts seems belaboring the obvious. But the percent of such default installs is trivial at best. So? I invite constructive comment on why or why NOT using a separate device for OS and user data makes any sense.<br>
<br>The two bedrock facts being? 1: that any disaster befalling the OS device's file system has "less chance" of damaging user data. 2: Establishing that user data as detached from the OS assists many things. The list of those "many things" is non-trivial and more. Let me give the short closers<br>
<br>*IF* we establish it as default practice that future Linux installs use a two device minimal mode we banish whole categories of data disasters. That alone is good enough for me. The icing on that being swapping an OS becomes closer to a trivial "no user data risked" operation. <br>
<br>Addendum forced by premeditated desire to stifle the YahBut gallery is the cherry on top.<br><br>In a long past time a "drive" was a truly major expense. Even removable media such as floppy etc were cost issues. Today ? I humbly offer the KCLUG thread on Craig's issues RE: Rolling back updates. as "Exhibit A" <br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Oren Beck<br><br>816.729.3645<br>