Wesh oud al, so li consider the clouds aspect to this as well. S event money. I think part of the problem is that the cloud linders all joined in and o, let's just hoast post cris as the dates a warehouse and make it scale or build something u new. Wit. Some of them did do that as well, and but they didn't build the rest of the stack. They just built those things. And so then other people have gone and built different parts of the restess stack.

S, i do think that there's a certain amount of like, noisiness to this debate, where it's something people seem to want to fight about, and so more people continue to join the fray. One of the things that i want to see if i can convince the two of you of, and maybe this'll be a very boring podcast if we all just agree, but i don't think that in softer engineering land. In two thousands, when you were seeing the rise of web frameworks, i don't think that there were arguments about bundling and unbundling. I don't think that people were like, al the rails ecosystem is trying to do too much. Because, you know, maybe there's thee multiple reasons for that. I think that part of it is that the rail ecosystem is this, like, completely open set. It'sit's a framework and a series of functionalies that like pluged together. And you can choose to use parts of it, and you can choose not to use parts of it. But like, the beautiful thing about it is that, if you ato, you can use them all together. So i frequently find myself in a lot of these debates thinking that it's not actually one or the other, it is how you get both. And the reason, i think that we the corps, part of why we find ourselves in this one or the other, mine said, is that railes was not a commercial entity. It had no opinion. You like, use it however you want to use it. It's just there for you like use hoever you want. But all o the folks participating in this conversation tend to have a viewpoint, and they they want it to be either bundled or unbundled, andis for the ecosystem toike, find its way there. I don't know. I think about this like a composibility standpoint, and like creating experiences for users as oppost trying to win a technology

war. I think i agree with that. And i think that that is the ways in which the like, analogy with engineering doesn't work. We'rea not of engineers. I don't know, certainly don't know what was happening an like the ruby chap rooms in in two thousand te and like railsbes comebing big. But we're troting to build products. We're not trying to build technology. Like ess technology is part of that, but at the end of the day, this is a big product, and it's more akin to be of like, why isn't there a c r n stack? There's not. There's just salis force bult a better c r m than everybody else, and attacked on a munch of stuff. And ebyby sail this a bigger thing than sals forceis a bigger thing than c r m. But i think it's closer to that experience than it is webb developed me frameworks where it was just technology. It was like people were trying to figure had of bilt answers. So

let me pose an answer to that. Andthe david, i want to see if you feel like my answer is b s, i think that the analogy to sales force is instructive in so far as what we are trying to build here is. Well, at least, i think most of this conversation is around data infr structure, and not data products, or data applicatet, whatever you want to call like the consumption layer. And i would not in any way suggest that i think that the right answer in the user experience layer is 100 %, absolutely, that it's going to be like commercial products, great. But i think that we've time and time again seen that intra structure is best built by open source and open standards. And you tend to find a winter take all solution at a layer of the stack, and everybody uses it, and its open and use f can built on top of it from that point forward. Soat i think that we're kind of trying to build commercial solutions in intra structure in a way that, like historically, infra structure doesn't really get built. Ok, david, what do you think?