 And Dave Scott, as you know, is also very vocal about that. You know, you're seeing just an incredible action, you know, with 3PAR. Any comments there? What do you think? What does it mean to NetApp, the whole 3PAR, HP, Dell thing? You know, I think 3PAR is about HP and Dell. And, you know, for NetApp, I don't think we have an opinion. 3PAR is a player in the market. They'll remain a player in the market. I think this is a more reflection of what Dell or HP believe is the strength of their current roadmap, the current partnerships and what they see on the horizon of what they've got on the drawing boards coming forward. And whatever it is that they see in their future, they must believe that 3PAR is a better option because they're paying a lot of money for it. Yeah, and your comment was that it's really not about cloud. It's about filling in gaps in the portfolio. Absolutely. I don't think that this is part and parcel of some cloud strategy. I think it's just a stray portfolio gap that they're trying to fill. I think that they have a need there, both of them, and both competing for the same asset, and that's driving up a high price. It's been a long road for 3PAR, but certainly the last week has been good for their shareholders. You've been there, right? I saw you guys recently made an announcement with, I think it was SyncSort. You had some backup stuff, and it didn't cost you $2 billion to get that capability. It looked very data domain-like. Was that a correct interpretation? Well, I think that goes back to our original point, and that is, depending on users to integrate on their own a whole bunch of point products, it's not a realistic value proposition. So for us, it's incumbent upon us to find best of breed providers in the industry that we can integrate with and we can ultimately create full solutions. So SyncSort is just one example. They've been a good partner for us, but there are many others. We do interesting work with BMC. We do interesting work with Microsoft. We do interesting work with a lot of other players, and the ultimate goal is to approximate the integration capability of HP and IBM yet still deliver best of breed, which they can't do.