There are lots of choices, but personally I would go with Linux Mint as something likely familiar and packaged with pretty much all the basics for the use case you outlined.

Perhaps I am incredibly naive, but for me a “Forever mouse” is something you buy, own, and have control absolute over!

No, a software or hardware KVM lets you use the same keyboard and mouse across multiple devices.

Have a look at software KVMs, for a similar functionality.

A simple usb KVM should do the trick of easily switching between the two.

I use Resolve Studio, that gives you access to all Resolve features but it does not fix codec licensing issues at the Linux OS level.

And there is angst re AI hallucinating, seems that also affects HR.

Mention is made of Resolve, which does work great as a professional grade video editor, and in the next breath codec issues are raised, which are not a Linux issue but proprietary licensing issue.

For a simple workaround in Mint go to: /home/UserName/.local/share/nemo/scripts

Create 2 files to convert videos from the right click menu and make them executable in the Permissions:

#!/bin/bash

for file; do ffmpeg -i “$file” -c:v dnxhd -profile:v dnxhr_hq -pix_fmt yuv422p -c:a pcm_s16le -f mov “${file%.*}”.mov

done

And:

#!/bin/bash

for file; do ffmpeg -i “$file” “${file}”.mp4

done

Any public data exchange has an element of risk, but the management/priority of that risk relates to your relevant risk matrix/profile.

Any exposed data transverses via a provider, be it mobile or Wi-Fi is pertinent, if you are concerned about provider vulnerabilities and exposure, be it Wi-Fi or mobile, use a VPN and related encryption.

It will get worse with AI joining the fray!

What is your actual personal use case, all you mention is a terminal, which every distro will support, likely with many different choices as to terminal options?

I will repeat what I have proffered before:

If OpenAI stated that it is impossible to train leading AI models without using copyrighted material, then, unpopular as it may be, the preemptive pragmatic solution should be pretty obvious, enter into commercial arrangements for access to said copyrighted material.

Claiming a failure to do so in circumstances where the subsequent commercial product directly competes in a market seems disingenuous at best, given what I assume is the purpose of copyrighted material, that being to set the terms under which public facing material can be used. Particularly if regurgitation of copyrighted material seems to exist in products inadequately developed to prevent such a simple and foreseeable situation.

Yes I am aware of the USA concept of fair use, but the test of that should be manifestly reciprocal, for example would Meta allow what it did to MySpace, hack and allow easy user transfer, or Google with scraping Youtube.

To me it seems Big Tech wants its cake and to eat it, where investor $$$ are used to corrupt open markets and undermine both fundamental democratic State social institutions, manipulate legal processes, and undermine basic consumer rights.

My guess would be to protect the the unaware from being tracked and exploited for profit, in other words sharing an idea without personal cost.

Monopolistic gatekeepers pretending to be otherwise…that the rest of the world does not have equal rigor, and the EU itself at times quivering when it comes to regulating big tech, should be of concern.