 these way in, but I mean, Log4j is an example, right? There was a scathing set of articles around like, oh, this is the end of open source because the source of the vulnerability came from an open source project. That is a very myopic viewpoint, right? All software has bugs and issues and flaws. And so for me personally, if you balance the ability to look into proprietary code behind a firewall and figure out where the problem occurred, it's incumbent upon the software developer to really self, to find that themselves, versus the open source code where immediately the entire world can evaluate that code, find the flaw, address it in an open manner. That is a much faster path to, if you just accept that humans write code, we all make mistakes, like there's gonna, or just not anticipate everything. And if you make the assumption that there will be, there will be bugs and security flaws in software, would you rather have complete transparency that anyone can help find it and see it and we can all evaluate it and there can be thousands of people or it's all on one company to basically self, self-assass. So to me, it wasn't a scathing indictment of open source, it was a confirmation of- How they work together. And to Gab's point, it then, what it does is raises the awareness of the importance of how you govern open source and you make sure you've got a vibrant community continuing to look at it and develop it and where you get in trouble in any situation is when the code starts to just get stale and nobody's updating it and maintaining it and putting it into the context of today's challenges. And I think along those lines, definitely security is the number one pushback or question that I get, but then there's also longevity. So if it's community sourced, what is the effort that goes into maintaining it? Does it die quickly? And I think what we've started to see now is that sometimes the name, the incubator of the open source platform actually can close but the open source code or platform itself continues on and that's because you have the community who have established these open governance protocols that live beyond that moment in time when a name is attached to the platform itself. So the longevity piece to me, I think is starting to prove itself to not be problematic. I also think thinking about is open source actually enterprise level platform or is it just something that you're gonna do in your garage or in a group of people? That's right and I won't go through the list of global companies who have started to use open source platforms to power their products. I would wager that most people don't realize they're using open source platforms every single day in their life. So that to me answers the question around enterprise grade or not, right? I would actually add one final thing besides what you said. I mean, I think the concept of open source as a hobbyist Steve Balmer 20 years ago shooting down on Linux, I think we're past that we're saying even financial service institutions, the largest investment banks, for example, in Phoenix contributing to open source. But I think the last sort of myth that is gonna be the spell is this idea of open source equals free or open source has no commercial value, sort of related to the enterprise readiness. I mean, I think over the last three years between the Red Hat and GitHub as well as several exits and IPOs of much smaller commercial open source endeavors, I think we are sort of past that stage as well, but that would be a number sort of free myth that I think I've seen over.