I don't think that is a problem. Part of the price of the OS goes into the codec.

Open Solaris tries to get around this, by getting you to pay for the codec after install.

Of course not paying is the ideal outcome, for most consumers.

Here here.

Surely it's not hard to make an operating system and browser that makes it almost transparent to install a codec or bit of software.

I agree, get gstreamer or something else to work seamlessly. And at the same time, give me the ability to turn the damn thing off. I can already imagine, the state of web pages to come, it will be like a license to put video adds all over my webpage, and drag my cpu into hades.

I am lost in this debate.

If the decoder is a paid for plugin. Then it makes sense for it not to be shipped.

Why can't Google buy out the h.264 tech and give it to us all?

Why do we need the video tag anyway?

Doesn't it make more sense to use existing codecs that already sit on the system? Why bundle the codecs in the browser, wouldn't it be better to work on a common architecture that can interface with codecs?

To place a disclaimer 'this is not fact' before everything you say, is a bit tedious.

And superfluous.

I read the article with the word 'nerd' replaced by the word 'men'.

I like my Opera as it is thanks.

Yeah, i'm not saying the MS change the product dev/team thats behind Opera. I would just look at it as a brand re-building exercise. It doesn't have to be revenue generating, but MS needs to get some developer goodwill behind them.

Buy stake in Opera, maybe adopt it as a default browser, but i would definitely leave the dev process alone. But judging from how large companies act, dreaming this is just silly on my part.

A concern might be that you expose your server side code. Though many os projects do this by design.

Not necessarily, you can make a really high-level DSL to express validation rules, that encompasses both client-side and server-side logic, and then you generate the client-side-only validations from this model while not including the server-side, "secret" validation code.

The term 'web designer' means different things to different people.

Expanding the term web to website - creates: 'website designer'. And it reads as someone that can design websites. It doesn't even imply that they can create or implement them!

I think of the expression in more holistic terms. But I don't know many individuals who are experts at all the parts. Finding a team of people with a blend of skills that complement each other, is the holy grail in my opinion.

Two print designers, come web designers I have worked with have both been excellent contributers to web projects. One heavily focuses on the look and feel, html and css. The other is gifted in the looks department and is a competent programmer. It took them both a while for them to get the hang of a new medium, but they love it. It does take a while for print designers to understand the elasticity of a web page, some find it hard to relinquish pixel perfection.

I can realise a site design from paper based mockups, bitmaps and vectors. I'd struggle to create a visual design myself but can work with an artist that understands 'web design' principles.

While it may be a nice idea to create 'out of the box' designs, you are still bound to your medium. Understanding that medium's strengths, weaknesses and conventions is very important.

So I'd like to emphasise the point again, that a mult-disiplined team can all contribute something good to a site. That's certainly my experience anyway. Someone without a clue about html or css, may still be the perfect person to organise and map content.