 Let me just talk about Media Wiki versus Confluence for a second. And basically, I just want to set the record straight, because I know I do consulting for Media Wiki. And every time I talk to a corporation or a group and they're thinking about Wikis, if it's not SharePoint, it's always, well, we're just going to use Confluence. Or we use Confluence. Or the IT wants us to use Confluence, but we want to use Media Wiki. And frustratingly, I have come across many examples, whether it's in official media channels or from the marketing department at Atlassian or from the internal IT group that really doesn't want to tackle another technology in their data center and internally. I have encountered a lot of mis-tales and fairy tales and misinformation. So I just want to try to set the record straight a little bit real quickly. And also point out that this is on my Wiki, so you're welcome to join the conversation there and add to this if you would like. And also, there's another spot I'll mention in a minute. Anyway, if you look at Media Wiki and compare it to Confluence, wrong slide. There we go. I've got this nice little comparison chart, which is over here. There we go. So, I've got this comparison chart with green and red dots that green is good and red is bad. And as you can see, if you scroll down this list, many of the green dots are on the side of Media Wiki. And I'm not trying to be biased here. I'm just trying to set the record straight. And so, for example, if you look at the license, the license on Media Wiki is the GNU GPL. It's a free software product. And that means it protects your investment because it's reversible. It's extensible. You're not tied to the fate of a sole proprietor. You're not subject to vendor lock-in. Now, maybe Atlassian doesn't go away, but neither should Media Wiki. And so, I just think that you have a much better protection on your investment from that open source license. If you, let's say, if you look at integration on the platform, one of the, if you'll read a million opinions that say that, well, Atlassian is great because they've got integration. They've got integration with what? Their other products. In fact, that's their entire corporate history is that the company has grown by acquisition, taking this product, assembling it in to their existing product line, and then touting the integration, which is great if you're on Atlassian bandwagon, okay? They've got a suite of products that you can pay more and more and more for and get more and more lock-in. And hopefully, their tools work the way that you expect them to because, let me tell you, some of their code review tools and other chat tools, whatever, may not actually work the way that you're accustomed to using Slack or that you're accustomed to using IRC or you're accustomed to using a bug tracker compared to their bug tracker. So, one of the things that just I find kind of comical and I got to point this out, if you click on this little, where the heck is it? Oh boy, it's at the bottom. Let me just go all the way down as I know it's in the footnotes. When I put this together at least a month ago, I noticed that on their own installation of Confluence, where, and this is, they're two original products, right? Confluence and Jira, the bug tracker, they tout integration. If you go to that page, if you go to their own website at the bottom of their support says, oh, data cannot be retrieved due to an unexpected error. View these issues in Jira. Well, how's that integration working for you? That's the vendor's website, okay? So, yeah, let's get back here. If you look at customization, well, we'll have a discussion about that. I mean, I can't say there's a pro, I can't say there's a clear winner here. You can definitely customize Confluence. You obviously can customize MediaWiki. I think that it depends on what you mean by customization because Confluence is easy to customize out of the box. An administrator can log in with administrator rights and click, click, click, and just change how Confluence works. And so, for the enterprise user, I'd almost have to give them the clear edge and say, oh, well, for that use case, it's clearly more customizable. But on the other hand, if what you mean by customization is like true customization to try to integrate with some backend data source or corporate procedure and things like that, well, I think I'd give the clear advantage to MediaWiki. So, it kind of depends on what question you're really asking. And in the terms of ease of use, there's 32 million registered users on Wikipedia. So, there's a good chance that people in your enterprise, in your staff, new hires, whatever, they've used MediaWiki before, they've seen it before, they know how to use the software. And now you have a WYSIWYG editor with Visual Editor. You've got new enhancements like Yaron just completed adding, which one, the rich text editor is? Oh, yeah, TinyMCE. TinyMCE. And I'll wrap this up quicker. But the Atlassian folks, they decided to take the WYSIWYG approach to the maximum. They eliminated the option to even use Wikitext. And so, if you're developers who customarily use IDEs like Vim or Emacs or what have you, and they're used to just typing up a storm, they can't even do that now. They've got to click and click and click and use a Microsoft Word type interface. So, I give the edge to MediaWiki. Search, I've seen so many people say that search is better in Confluence. Well, actually, the search in MediaWiki is actually at a different level, at a higher level compared to Confluence. So, I would say, and based on Lex's even newer advancements at a higher level still. If you look at, let's see, well, here's a good example. I mean, SSL, on the one hand, Atlassian just markets to the internal corporate LAN environment. So, maybe they just assume, well, security's not an issue. If you do want to install SSL, it's up to you. They say they support it, but the instructions are there and you're responsible for doing that. So, it's totally up to you. On the other hand, with MediaWiki, any vendor that provides MediaWiki as a service like we do, we include SSL by default. And we can encrypt any kind of front end or any communication between MediaWiki and other servers or applications that might access the same data. Oh, okay. Thanks, Brian. Yeah, there was search. We talked about, I skipped over an audience, but SSL, I give the win to MediaWiki. How does MediaWiki lose? Well, see, this is just what I call a red herring. It's a completely false argument, false logic. MediaWiki, Gartner rates software vendors. The Wicca Media Foundation is not a software vendor. They will never win. They'll never even be rated by Gartner. So, if someone touts Atlassian confluences Gartner ratings and that's why they chose the software, well, that's nice, but that doesn't mean anything compared to MediaWiki. They weren't even rated by Gartner for Wikis. They were rated, evaluated for collaboration, enterprise agile planning tools. Actually, that's the category. It kind of reminds me of vehicle ratings from JD Power and Associates. We got the leading vehicle in the class. What's your class? Well, we'll write you a check for $500,000. We'll define a class that we can win and, you know, yeah. They were not rated best in class for Wikis, not for collaboration, not for knowledge management. It's enterprise agile planning tools, whatever that means. So, I know I'm over time. I could go on and on about this, but I will share links on the program page so that you can read the full commentary. And I just want to give proper credit to Blue Spice. If you're really interested in this, they went through an exhaustive analysis of like 280 points, point by point, statistically quantifying and so on. So, you can find those links as well to really kind of compare these two products. So, let's see, do I have demos references? All right, there's even a demo site on there. If you want to kind of kick the tires, you can get a couple demos of my distribution quality box, the Blue Spice distribution of MediaWiki, and you can kick around Confluence. They make it hard to find their demo, but there is one. And that's all I'll talk about now. Any questions? Really a comment, and I found the same thing when I was doing the comparison with SharePoint. This is the same issue. You put the Wiki platform and then you say, is it in fact an agile collaboration tool? And the answer is no, you have to put some things on top of it before it becomes that. You can make it into that, but out of the box it isn't that. And it's the same with SharePoint. Is it an enterprise document filing system? And the answer is not yet. You can put stuff in it that will make it that, and we're missing those layers that take the Wiki process and make it into the objective thing that they're evaluating. So there's some argument to say we're missing a layer, an application layer that make, customizes it into an agile mechanism, collaboration mechanism. Oh, I agree. MediaWiki doesn't compete too well out of the box because it's kind of like flour. Flour is not very useful just out of the bag. You got to mix it with some butter and sugar and bake it and everything else to make cookies and pie. And we don't have those products identified that then take it into that space for comparison by the customer. Yeah. All right, thanks. Do you want to go?