Well, the ones suitable for mentioning on a public site, anyway :-P
Glenn has a long-standing interest in alternative input devices. The 7-key keypad on his desk is able to input (with varying degrees of convenience) any key that a matrix-keyboard can do (and some). It works by assigning a letter or symbol to a combination of key-presses rather than one symbol per key. It is like playing chords on a piano which is why it is called a chord keyboard, and is a lot easier to learn than it looks. This particular keyboard is the Bat™ by Infogrip. Chord keyboard proponents will often claim that it is quicker than touch typing on a matrix keyboard. Unbiased studies show this isn’t really true: it is about the same. The real advantage is having a hand free to operate the mouse or a 3D controller for a CAD system or Virtual Reality environment.
You can get a BAT from: http://www.infogrip.com/ for about $200 (tax deductible since it is obviously work/study related).
If that is too scary, I am currently testing one of these: http://www.trulyergonomic.com/ (sometimes a matrix-keyboard is just better for the job [eg, when programming I need access to too many symbolic keys that the InfoGrip chord-map has on multi-chord combos] but I hate those wrist-twisting old raked-key layouts! - the slanted angle of the columns is only there because typewriters used to have lots of metal levers that couldn't be on top of each other; numeric keypads post-date mechanical typewriters which is why they are lined up vertically).
I considered this one too: http://www.typematrix.com/ . Very nice looking, but not quite finger-length-optimised. Would likely make an excellent travel keyboard (except I rarely travel, and don't use a computer when I do).
As far as matrix-keyboards go, I am not a great fan of the QWERTY layout. While a certain amount of the tales told about the layout are flagrantly false, it is true that the top row contains the word TYPEWRITER re-arranged (so salesmen could dash off an easy demo without learning to type). And while the key layout wasn't chosen to slow typists down (to stop mechanical jams) it was laid out to keep commonly-used-together letters mechanically separated from each other under-the-hood (to stop mechanical jams).
The Dvorak layout is the best-known alternative. Most of the stuff about Dvorak being amazingly faster is rubbish: the speed differences are marginal at best. The real advantage with this layout is the lower-finger-movement is less likely to cause RSI problems over the long term.
Another alternative is the Colemak layout which represents a compromise on QWERTY, staying closer to the familiar layout while moving the common problem keys to more sensible locations. It also preserves the location of the common shortcut keys for undo-cut-copy-paste (Z-X-C-V).
In the end the QWERTY layout is not optimal, but is good enough that the benefits of replacing it en masse don't quite outweigh the costs.... At least historically: today, with the technology so cheap, going out and spending a few dollars on keycap stickers and changing the layout in the keyboard control-panel is trivial so each user can work to their own preference, at least on their regular machine. Spending a few tens of dollars on a USB keyboard of one's preferred configuration to cart about isn't even a huge deal today (the TypeMatrix ones mentioned above are conveniently small and portable, and available in QWERTY, Dvorak or blank-keyed).
Personally, I am looking at a layout of my own design, with a predominantly Colemak alpha-numeric, left-side embedded hexadecimal sub-layer and programming-optimised positioning of symbolic keys. Arrow pad on the left, mainly because I can then use the arrow keys and the mouse at the same time for MineTest! All on a TruelyErgonomic keyboard, of course, because irrespective of mapping, raked keyboards are just wrong.
The small violin that sits on my desk is for me to play "My Heart Bleeds for Thee" on when students come to me with stories of how they couldn't return / care-for / book-ahead equipment because life is just so much harder than they ever thought it would be. Particularly first-years who often haven't worked out yet that they are now adults and their parents and teachers are not going to wipe their noses for them anymore. O_o
Much of which I use myself.
Here is some useful software, particularly for media-artists (such as the students where I work). I'm sticking to the open-source stuff since it is highly available and my area of specialisation. Being open source, versions generally exist for all mainstream platforms (GNU/Linux, MacOS, MS-Windows):
Blender is a powerful production-ready 3D animation environment used by amateur and professional content producers alike. It is fully capable of cinematic-quality production, as the Blender Open Projects demonstrate. Has a game engine too, though I haven't looked into that.
Handbrake is a free video format converter. It supports most file types and codecs.
AVIdemux is a free video editor designed for simple cutting, filtering and encoding tasks. It supports many file types, including AVI, DVD compatible MPEG files, MP4 and ASF, using a variety of codecs.
GIMP is a powerful free image editor. Probably about equivalent functionality to Photoshop LE. I use this one exclusively - all the images on this site were created and/or processed in GIMP, for example.
Celestia is a space-simulator based on detailed real astronomical data. If you ever want to do shots of space, this is a good place to get them (you'd be surprised who uses it in their movies/serials!). While the mainline version is based on the real known universe, sci-fi fans have also produced replacement data sets for popular sci-fi universes. Note that this is not a game - you don't fly around in some sort of space-ship shooting stuff or trying to achieve a goal. It is a simulator where you basically move the camera around the known (and scientifically extrapolated) universe as an "invisible eye" and can set up flight paths, lock orbits on objects, etc. You can, for example, set the camera above the surface of the moon to get a realistic idea of what an Earth-rise would look like. Because of the basis in reality, the further you get from Earth, the less detail is available - for example, the surface of Pluto is blurry because it is rendered from the best available actual images we have of the dwarf-planet's surface, which are themselves quite low-resolution.
MakeHuman is a human figure modeler for exporting to environments such as Blender, 3DMax, etc. Uses a mesh that has been highly optimised for efficiency and subdivisioning and has modular tools for quickly creating a variety of human forms.