 So today's topic is, it was never about innovation. I'm John Mark, I work at Red Hat, I'm the Gluster Community Leader, but I will not be talking about either Red Hat or Gluster. I'll be talking about sort of open source history, how open source won, and what sort of lessons we can learn from that and how to apply them to the next step. Why did open source win and what lessons can we derive from that for everything that's going on today in cloud computing and big data, and are there lessons to be derived from that? I think that's kind of the main question. I don't like to say agenda per se, so these are the themes, these are the topics we'll be addressing. First of all, addressing what is innovation, because everyone wants to talk about it, I'm not sure everyone actually knows what it is. I don't have my remote clicker and I'd like to wander around, so please bear with me while I walk back and forth to the slides. When I think of innovation, I think of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and the art of flying, or learning how to fly, in that flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing. In other words, you're not actually trying to fly, you're just throwing yourself at the ground and you happen to miss. That's what I think of as innovation. I don't think anyone really sets out to innovate, and if you do, I think you may be doing it wrong. I don't think you can try to innovate. I think innovation is kind of like one of those elusive things that happens if you do everything else the right way. Sort of like happiness. I don't think you can really search for and find happiness. Happiness is something that happens along the way if you do things correctly in the first place. Okay, I can ignore that, right? And then when all else fails, there's the Wikipedia page that will tell you the street definition for what innovation is. A little drive it short. It could be helpful to get a little bit of an idea. The basic idea is, sure, innovation is important. It's important to have new ideas and to incorporate new ideas and things, but I think more important than that part is the part before that where you're setting the stage for innovation to happen and how do you actually do that? And should you actually try to create innovation or should you just really focus on setting the stage the right way so that other people can participate in the thing you created and then be innovative on top of it? And I guess coming from the open source background, how do you judge innovation success? How do we know it's successful? How do we know open source is successful? Well, think of world domination. Back in the 90s, and I'm starting to date myself, but back in the 90s when Linus Torvalds was asked what his goal was for Linux because everyone asked him what his goal was and he thought it was kind of funny. They would ask him that because why would you have to have one necessarily? So he joked around saying world domination, of course. And then, of course, back then, 15 years ago, who knew that this would actually come to pass? It wasn't just a joke after all. In fact, it did come to pass. And when we really think about how important it became in the sort of global economy, it's important to, if you conduct a little thought experiment, you think about how much of the world's economy runs on open source. And you can think of it two ways. One is think of all the things that depend on open source software, so banking, financial systems, pretty much all of our transactions on a business level happen on open source software at some stage of the transaction. Or think of it another way, what would happen if, to continue the thought experiment, what would happen if overnight, for whatever reason, all the open source software in the world disappeared? What would be the result in the world? And you can think of it that way, it would be an absolute calamity. Famine, hunger, disaster, the financial system would collapse. There would be no way to conduct the transactions the way we've come to do them now. And so when you think of it that way, you think that the world essentially runs an open source software. And in my mind, that's kind of the definition of world domination. That's why I don't think it's actually a stretch to say that open source now has won. If you listen to Mark Hinkel, Mark Hinkel's keynote, he likes to talk about open source won now what? And I think that's exactly right. Someday some grad student is going to, in economics is going to have an interesting project where they're going to calculate just how much, designing a dollar value to the open source software that's running in the world. How much of the world's economy actually relies on open source software? I think it's very significant. When you think of the millions of people around the world who are either directly involved with creating it, or installing it, or maintaining it, or running businesses on top of it, it's very substantial and we have to think of it as kind of one of the core pieces of the world's infrastructure and the world's economy. And so, yeah, I think it's safe to say that open source won. When you look at the companies over the last 10 to 15 years that have succeeded, that have been at the vanguard of technology, they're companies that have, by and large, bought into the open source development model. They're companies that have got their business on open source. The companies that didn't do as well are the ones that didn't. And it's almost that clear when you look at the winners versus losers of the last decade. And yet, in spite of that, it's kind of one of the great untold stories. It's, you know, you don't hear every day in the everyday tech press or any other press how these companies bet their business on open source and how open source was essential to their success. It's kind of, it's something that I'd like to play up a bit more so that people understand just how important it is in the world today. And yet, despite all the success, you still hear occasionally the sort of disclaimers or the trying to downplay the success of open source over time. And you still hear from time to time, well, customers don't care if it's open. Customers don't care if it's open source. And yet, at the same time, it's pretty clear by this point that customers do care. And they care because they voted with their wallets. They've decided that this is important enough to bet their business on and this is something that has continued unabated and continuously for the last 15 years sort of an accumulative level of building success one business at a time for the last 15 years. You may think that, well, that's because of price because it's free and I want to get to that in a minute because that's actually not entirely the case because when you think about who's getting paid for this, this is the other great question I hear whenever I talk about open source is, well, they can't work because no one's getting paid. But in fact, everyone's getting paid. People who maintain are getting paid. The people who build businesses that utilize open source software are getting paid via the business and services that they offer. There are many ways to build businesses using open source software either directly or indirectly. And so it's not, we can't think of it in terms of the usual, the traditional vendor makes stuff and sells it. There is a whole ecosystem at play here at different levels of the software stack that operate. And again, when you think of the total open source economy, it's got to be in the trillions of dollars. And then, of course, the other great question about open source was, well, it's not innovation. It's not where stuff, cool stuff happens. It's fondling other people's innovation with its own cheap knockoffs. And this is something we've heard for many, many years. And in fact, until very recently, until it became very clear that this was, in fact, not the case. And we know it's not the case because right now, when you look at all the areas of innovation that are happening in technology, cloud computing, big data, virtualization, almost mobile computing, at almost every layer of the stack, all the major ecosystems are built in open source software. All the innovation has shifted now to these open source ecosystems that are producing all the software that runs our cloud infrastructure, that runs our mobile infrastructure, that runs all the main software that we use on a daily basis that has built this multi-trillion dollar global economy. In fact, I think it's safe to say that at this point, we have seen our last ubiquitous proprietary solution in the data center. I don't think we'll ever see another proprietary piece of software become ubiquitous in our lifetime. I think that time is over. There may be other dangers coming up, and I'll get to that in a moment, but I think we've seen the last one. Is that a question? Yes. Okay. What? Why is that? Ah, I'm getting to that. I think because right now, I mean, just the short answer is that we've reached the point where all the major centers of innovation are happening in these open source ecosystems. It's entirely possible that there will be a software stack that is built on top of these open source ecosystems that will become ubiquitous. But I think over time, it's becoming such a... So ubiquitous on the open source front that to try to compete with proprietary technology, you either have to very narrow focus on a vertical market or you're reaching a market that hasn't been saturated yet. But over time, even those will have open source competitors. And so I ask you, do these look like cheap open source knockoffs to you? No, not at all. And so let's review kind of where we've come from at this point in time. We can say that open source has been a ginormous success. I think that's pretty clear. We can say it's not based on price. We can say that because anyone who makes software can have a choice between, or has the choice between offering it simply free of charge, or offering it under an open source license. And we have all sorts of companies who do the freemium thing where they offer their software free of charge. And we haven't seen those takeoff to become ubiquitous in any kind of way. And customers, by and large, have chosen the version that... Customers, by and large, have decided to choose the open source software as opposed to simply just freemium software. And you have to understand that I think the core concept at Graspere is why is that? Why is it important to customers to not just have something that's free on price, but also free as in freedom? Why is that important to them? Why have they chosen that? And then finally, the last thing to review is that open source is in fact the center of innovation for all the major software ecosystems. So why do customers... Why have people chosen overwhelmingly the open source option as opposed to just the free and price model? And I think if we go back to the four freedoms, going back to the free software foundation, going back to the GNU project, and looking how they laid the foundation for everything that came afterwards. And when you read these, does this look like something that's made to generate innovation? Does this look like something with the goal of which was to, you know, push technology forward in new ways that no one had thought of? You know, I don't think it is. When you look at it, it's really coming from the standpoint of these are freedoms, they need to be realized, and they should not be, you know, contributing. And so when you look at these four freedoms and you think, how could that have become the basis for all the innovation that's happening today? That to me is the central question. And how does it apply to, you know, services delivered over a network, which is the world we're rapidly moving towards? Any thoughts, questions? So when you think what open source is, you know, when you think of the four freedoms, and you think of open source victory, I think it really comes down to setting the groundwork such that every participant has some degree of ownership. There's a level playing field at work when it comes to the open source community. It's not just a case where the vendor dictates everything and you as the customer or user have to accept what they give you. You as a customer or user is an active participant in the ecosystem actually trading the software to begin with. So it's community driven. It's inherently more agile. You think of the old model which was just the vendor pushing software down to the customer. That's not agile. That's all the development is focused on one core group and then pushing the changes downstream. When you think of the open source model and you think of all the different types of users and developers and vendors participating in the ecosystem, it becomes, there's a lot more, I guess, heat in terms of generating the ideas that become the products that are produced over time. So it's a level playing field. It's something where everyone has a stake and because everyone has a stake, they care very deeply about how it gets produced and what happens next. So it comes down to agility plus ownership. When you go back to the four freedoms that I showed before, those four freedoms to me represent agility and ownership. They set the stage for this rapid development model that we now call open source development, but that's not what it's set out to do. It's set out to create a managed ecosystem that everyone was able to participate in on a level playing field and then as a result of that, we get the agility of development. I think it's also good to understand that open source didn't happen because developers thought it was a great idea. There were some developers who thought it was a great idea, but they were a minority, a distinct minority of the total number of developers in the world. I remember very clearly, I used to work at SourceForge and we commissioned a study to determine how much did the developers on SourceForge actually care about open source. Turns out the vast majority of them did not care at all. So why did they produce open source software? They produce open source software because the users demanded it, because customers demanded that. And because it was the customers taking an equal stake in the game that forced developers to release software open source. When you think of what a vendor wants to do, would a vendor willingly choose to release their software as open source? Well, now they would because we've seen how the model can work over time. But think back in the late 90s, why would a vendor choose to release software as open source? It's because they see the competition doing it. It's because their customers are demanding it because they see it happening and so they know, okay, we have to go this direction. To me, it was the customers and the end users taking a stake in the whole system that dictated the vendor's hand. Yes. How do I write? Oh, it was a simple questionnaire. And I mean, I'm on other things to ask them like what was their license preference and stuff like that. And then I think one of the questions was, you know, one of the questions concerned if you could release under a proprietary license, would you? I think a lot of them said yes. So I would actually like to pick up that study again just to see exactly what it was. It was a very surprising result, especially because on source forage at the time, this was the center for most open source development. And if those guys weren't that concerned about open source in itself as a topic, then what does that say about everyone else? If only I had a nickel for every time a sales guy came up to me and said, what are we going to do about all those freeloaders who are downloading the free software and not giving us money, you know, where every time the sales guy came up to me and said, our biggest competitor is our open source project. I'd be a very wealthy man if I got money every time sales guy asked me that question. So I came up with this chart to sort of show you the relationship between the freeloaders, the decay, the users, and the producers, the people who are making stuff, or actually, or customers, actually paying customers. And what I wanted to show here was that it all sort of fits into the whole picture and that freeloaders are in fact very important. And so when you talk about an ecosystem or a playing field that's level where users take an active participation, active role in creating the software, you can see here that they're not just doing nothing. They're not just using it and throwing it away. They're actually participating in some way. Either they're helping other users or they're lending influence, making the potential market larger for you, or they're participating in some other way. I think market credibility plays a big role because the sheer size of users can determine your credibility. Therefore it makes sense that the more users you have, the more leverage you have when you're trying to sell a product. And so I think it's safe to say at this point that agility wins. The agility that comes from the level playing field that comes about as a result of the four freedoms, the agility that results from that is what is the killer app for open source. It's why open source has really taken over the data center. And as I like to say, innovation was not the goal, just an interesting by-product. We weren't trying to fly, we were throwing ourselves at the ground and missing. So that's all fine and well, but what next? What are we going to do about this cloud computing thing? Cat, what are we going to do about this cloud computing thing? Cloud. What lessons can we apply here to cloud computing? So based on what I just showed you about open source, I formed a hypothesis that says, when customers and users and developers can actively participate and each take an active stake in the development, everyone wins. That's how we get agility. And the question is, we've already established that this exists for open source. Does this type of level playing field exist in cloud computing? And I think you can tell by the way I'm phrasing that question that I don't think it does, but we can at least go through the exercise of finding out. When you think of the next phase of cloud computing, I like to think of cloud computing open source as chocolate and peanut butter. Who remembers the, I'm dating myself here, who can remember the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups ads where you got your chocolate and my peanut butter, you got your peanut butter and my chocolates. It tastes good. So open source and cloud are inherently entwined. I don't think you have one without the other. The development of cloud computing depends on, relies on, could not exist without all the open source infrastructure that helps to power it. At the same time, the development of, because cloud computing is becoming so much more important and ubiquitous, a lot more people, a lot more developers are dependent upon open source software. And so it becomes a virtuous cycle, I guess. Although in some cases it's a bit perverse because you can actually create proprietary services that run on open source software. But when you really think about what an open cloud is or what would it mean to be open in cloud computing? You think of transparency. You think of transparency at many different levels, at the platform level. So when you talk about the infrastructure that runs the cloud, the services level so that you can actually see inside of the services that you run and see how they run and perhaps even modify how they run. And then in the APIs, are the APIs open? Can you actually recreate those APIs on another platform? I could add another one in there, too, about the data formats. In fact, when you think of those three things together and you think of transparency, all these things boil down to data. When you think of cloud computing, there has to be the data component included with it. It's not just compute power. It's not just raw compute power. It's about the data that is munged and formatted to make these services operable and to make them useful to people. It really comes down to data, data governance, data in motion. Or as I like to say, data velocity. You know, I like to say that, well, I'm getting ahead of myself. So let me just move to the next slide. When you think of data velocity, I think of also monetary velocity. I think Stephen O'Grady was the one who said that data is a new currency. When you think of all the software that's produced now and all the services that are run, a lot of it depends on how it presents data to people, how it's consumed by people or other services. And so if you care that analogy one step further, money at rest isn't really useful to an economy. Money is generally useful when it is free-flowing and has unrestricted transactions that people can create and finish. And so data is kind of the same thing. Data is sitting at a vault and an archive is not particularly useful. It doesn't, well, it is useful, but it's not what makes services generally useful unless you're able to consume or use that data or apply it to some other service. And so data in motion is what drives data as currency. And any kind of artificial impediment to that data in motion prevents an open cloud. And in fact, when you look at a lot of services that are, you could consider cloud-based services or services run over and deliver to you over a network that are scalable and automated, it's kind of our old friend the black box because you can't see inside those services. You can't recreate those services. You can't touch the data inside those services unless it goes through the filters to present the data to you. And so it becomes an example of, you know, the new lock-in. Back in the day, lock-in was because, you know, a software vendor would give you proprietary software and they would store things locally and then open source kind of busted through that so that there wasn't the same degree of lock-in on a local computing scale. But when you go to cloud computing, well, that's a different story because, again, cloud computing is built on open source software by and large. But at the same time, when they create these services that are proprietary, they're preventing you from actually, you know, they're preventing you from really participating or having any sort of degree of ownership of the process. How many of you remember who Bob Yong was? Actually, I'm getting ahead of myself again. But yeah, when you think of lock-in, the vendor lock-in, or customer lock-in, you could say, when you use these services, do you have the ability to fire your vendor? Do you have the ability to move services from one platform to another? Do you have the ability to achieve true compatibility with the services that you have to use? And I think in most cases, the answer is no. And so now we get to the Bob Yong question. Who remembers Bob Yong? Bob Yong was one of the co-founders of Red Hat and he was very fond of going around and asking people, would you buy a car with a hood welded shut? And the first 50 times it was an interesting question and after that it got a little bit old, to be honest. But now you can think of it in a different way. When you think of the comparison between local computing and cloud computing, would you buy a car with a hood welded shut? But I think it transforms into something like would you drive on a road system that wouldn't let you choose your route? Or would you use a mapping system that wouldn't let you change the route? And of course, no, you wouldn't do that because that would be silly. And so now we come back to our old friend, the Four Freedoms. And we asked ourselves the question, how do the Four Freedoms apply in a cloud computing world? How can these things apply to what we're doing now with automated services over a network? And I'm not sure anyone has really figured out the answer to that because when you think of the open-source software that has or that abides by these Four Freedoms, that same open-source software is used to create proprietary services which actually restrict this. And so the question is if we want true innovation in cloud, if we want a level playing field, if we want an ecosystem where everyone has a stake in the process and everyone has some degree of ownership, how do we actually create that environment? How do we actually change what we're doing to push ourselves into, to set the stage for what could be a very innovative phase in technology? And to answer that, I think we have to define what is an open cloud? What does it mean to be open in cloud computing? And I think I've identified these five things that you could identify more, I'm sure, but the top one you can't really read very well, but it's open data formats because if you can't have multiple tools that can access and manage and modify the data, then it's not an open data format. There are multiple implementations of how to operate on that data, then it's not open. Interoperability, can you create services on different platforms and can you migrate them back and forth if you really need to? Well, that's actually service portability, but they're kind of intertwined. Open protocols and standards, if you have to disguise your transactions in closed protocols or standards or non-standards, then that's, again, not open. And then at the bottom, I think it's very important to have open source implementations. I think a lot of times we have these services that are proprietary and there's no way to get at the software that creates the top layer of service offerings or the presentation layer. And because of that, you can never really be certain if the stuff below it, the API as a protocol as the other stuff, you can never be certain if it's exactly what they say it is. You have to depend on their word. I think the only way to ensure that there's an open cloud underneath everything is to have the open source at the presentation layer. Now, obviously that presents some interesting challenges for someone trying to build a business selling services over a network, but I think it's the only way to be sure. I think it's kind of insurance. And if we think about what does it mean to project the four freedoms in the cloud, if you change just a couple of words in that, which I've done here, I think it actually gets closer to setting the stage than the other version. I don't know if this would actually work. I don't know if anyone would actually prefer this. I don't know if we need any licensing, but this would be kind of a different, just changing ever so slightly to project in the cloud. And why is this important? Why do we care? We've already established that agility wins. We've already established that when you have a level playing field, when you have a sort of this managed ecosystem where people abide by these ground rules, that it sets a stage for innovation, that it sets a stage for this massive levels of agility that were not possible. But we've established that when you have a system where the producer has ultimate control over what is seen by the consumer, that is actually an impediment to agility and innovation. And so the question becomes, if we want the economic growth that comes from the innovation that is enabled by freedom in the cloud, then obviously we want to change things so that it will lead to the desired result. Again, we're not trying to produce innovation, we're just trying to set the stage right so that the accidental innovation will be more likely to happen. And so what do we know? We know that agile is, agility is king, and that in order to have agility you must have an open cloud. And that the keys to an open cloud and the keys to innovation and agility are freedom, ownership, and leverage. And when everyone, again, when everyone has a stake in the game, they care a lot more. It seems to work a lot better in terms of producing the innovation that we want. And then finally, I think we kind of owe some of the free software people an apology, because for so many years we thought they were all wrong with their long hair and they're shouting us about free software. What turns out, you know what, they were right all along. It was the freedom that they were so excited about that led to all the good things that came about later. And yes, we could say that they were annoying and they should shut up about it sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that establishment of those four freedoms, that laid the groundwork for everything else that followed. And that's, I think, the most important lesson to take away from this. So, any questions? Comments? Candy throwing, yes? Comments to the point, innovation comes from pay activity. One of the things that I see limiting innovation the most right now is software patents. How do you see software patents in the picture? Well, obviously I think software patents are a big impediment to innovation. They're obviously not something we want to see. Unfortunately, I don't know of any easy way to remove them from our daily life or existence. They seem to be a reality that we unfortunately have to deal with. But yes, they are definitely a restriction on creativity and freedom and innovation. So, I don't have a rosy picture to paint about that, I'm sorry. They are in some other countries, they are not in Europe. So, there are some pressures to put them in Europe as well. Oh, yes. And Europe is starting to defend them, but hardly you can pressure back the US. Yeah, I wish there was an easy way to do that, except to vote for me when I run for Congress. But aside from that, just stay strong and make sure that it doesn't encroach in here as well. I think there's a very good reason why all the open-source multimedia projects move to Europe. The DMCA had a very chilling effect on open-source development of multimedia open-source software. And so, because of that, it all went overseas, it all came over here, and that's not likely to change in time soon. And hopefully, it'll be allowed to continue. Anyone else? Yes? If you're running your own software, then you have to find a service and get someone else to build a brand and buy them a free file. Absolutely. And in a way, it somehow seems to me that the free software business is easier, because in a way, we were given technology that we weren't allowed to open, and we thought to the point where actually we'd put this stuff in the back of ourselves. Right. But actually, if you compare... If you compare the computing world with the manufacturing, and if you compare building yourself with having a factory that produces cars, you'd say it's normally magnitude different or several orders of magnitude to be able to open up an open-source factory. Yeah. Like it would be to open-source, I don't know, the platform that Salesforce runs on, or something like that. Sure. What's your impressions in terms of the size and the complexity of the changes that have been done in the prior and services world compared to the point of free software world? It is significantly more complicated, and I don't see any easy way around that. And that's why I ask, do we actually need a different kind of license? Is licensing the issue? Is it more about just having sort of like a certified free cloud or open cloud and then having people sign up for that? But yeah, it's inherently more complicated. And I don't know... I've gone back and forth many times over whether or not the software, the presentation layer necessarily had to be open-source, for example. Would it be possible to have an open cloud where the presentation layer was still closed-source software? You could argue that with open data, with open APIs, with open protocols that you don't necessarily need the actual software to be open-source. And that's what I thought for a long time. Over time, I've come to decide that the only way to guarantee the future interoperability and openness of the cloud is to make sure that the software that runs it is open-source. But you could go the other way on that as well. It could mean that we'll have to accept a lot more compromises in the pursuit of a free cloud than we did sort of in the local computing context. Because like you said, that was much easier. There's a much easier way to... It was much easier to address that problem than it is what we're facing now. Yes. No, because encryption technologies seem to be evolving pretty well, even if the software that produces the encryption is open-source too. I would be interested in seeing a study on that to see if there is actually a difference. I suspect that there's not, that it would be the same either way. Yeah, it is. Right, there's a difference between data governance and data security. But to my knowledge, I haven't seen a lessening of security just because you have open protocols and defined open interfaces. At least not that I don't know. You would probably be able to speak to that more than I can. Right. I don't necessarily think that. I just think there's no appreciable difference, but I could be totally wrong. True. Yeah, well when people say that open-source is inherently more secure, I've never thought that that was true. And I never thought that was a reason for open-source to become popular. I always wondered about that myself. I never saw any concrete evidence that said it was more or less secure. Yes. But it's also easier to, it also means that you have to patch, whatever holes exist, you have to patch them immediately because someone can find those holes faster than they could with a proprietary code base. With more eyes, well more eyes looking at it, yes, but not all those eyeballs are, you know, friendly. Just a good one. Exactly. You got to take the good with the bad. But there's a trade-off, you know, in my opinion. Yeah, go ahead. Do you see the coming cloud environment and wanting to make that first leap? I think it takes someone to make that first leap. You know, who's the Richard Stallman of the cloud? I'm not sure I like to phrase it that way, but... You're the one who stood up. Yeah, I know. I stood up today, but I see it as, just as with local compute, we made compromises such that there's a mix of open source and proprietary technologies. I think it's going to be the same in the cloud. We're never going to have, you know, all the clouds in the world be open, but I think at some point there's going to be an economic incentive for more companies to have that interoperability and because of that, I think it's going to necessitate that at least a substantial portion of cloud computing be open. But I think there's always going to be a limit to that. So, I think the good news is, you know, it's not going to be completely closed. The bad news is it's not going to be completely open. Yeah. Have you been very successful building on top of open source? Yep. That's acceptable. Yes. Yes, it is. Yes. There's a network effect of the entire world being signed up to it, which is also quite complicated to tease out. So lots of kind of work on that kind of data model as well. Yeah, and that's why I said that, you know, data is a new currency. Or actually, I didn't say that. I stole that from Steven O'Grady. But yeah, I mean, it's great that I can download my personal data from any of these services, but like you said, it's completely useless. It's only useless in the context of the service that they're offering. And so that's why, you know, when you're participating in these services, can you recreate these services on another platform? And in the cases, in most cases, the answer is no, you cannot. And, you know, should you be able to, you know, probably depends on what level you're talking about. But I think for the most part, unless there's a good reason not to, I think you should be able to recreate services on other platforms. You know, there should be the concept of being able to fire the vendor to get rid of your vendor exchange for something else. And, you know, you look at something like Twitter, for example, just to pull something at random. You know, would it be possible, you know, I think status net was trying to do this to some extent, trying to create this portable service, portable service layer that did something very much akin to Twitter, and, you know, they didn't, they weren't really very successful at it. And yet, you know, so Twitter won, or has won so far, because they kept such a tight reign over that service and didn't allow the portability. And so you have to think about what would be the economic incentives then for other companies to get together and create a competing service that has the openness that we would want. And I don't know the answer to that question. Yeah. Oh, yeah, day deliberation front. And I have, and I have made use of that on many occasions. You want to exchange the, yes. Yeah, I'm, I think it's, you know, obviously I think it's terrible. I am a very big fan of the idea that if you legally obtain data, you should have access, it should be, you should have the ability to own it. If you have the, if you legally have data, you should be able to control how you access it, how you use it, the tools you use. You shouldn't have to require someone from a proprietary tool just to access data that you paid for. Thanks. You know, how do we change that? You know, we have to be a lot more stringent about the things that we let our governments get away with. And the, but that requires, you know, that requires outreach, that requires everyone to be, you know, evangelical, annoying, you know, just like the people, exactly. So if you can be annoying, if, then, you know, but at the same time, you have to have other people to buy it. You have to have a message that other people can believe in and take, and believe that it's important, and then actually buy in. I think a lot of shouting that has taken place in the past, like, for example, the, what is it, the broken by design, I think that was a huge flop. I don't think it worked. I don't think it got anyone involved in, I don't think it really carried the message of what the problem was and got people to get large numbers of people to buy into it. And because of that, I think just no one really understood what it was about and kind of said, okay, well whatever. We have to be able to demonstrate in a very visible way why it's important. And that's the key thing that I think has been missing. And honestly, I don't think it's really going to break out and beyond, you know, our small circle of people until there's a disaster that happens that shows this is why you don't want to do that. So at least I suspect that's what it will come down to, but I hope not. Anyone else before we wrap up? Thank you everybody for coming. It's been a pleasure.