ie8 fix

Oracle Office, MySQL, and other dreams

By | May 2, 2009, 12:15am PDT

Summary: The Sun/Oracle merger probably offers more genuine synergies and opportunities than anything either company has done in the past. One of those, a commercially minor but personally interesting one, involves a product which started life with name “Oracle Office” - it become something else, but could now realize its birthright.

Most people don’t know this, but at one time Oracle Corporation ran an extensive internal beta adding a pretty good word processor and spreadsheet to the Oracle Office communications product most recently renamed Oracle Beehive and now positioned against both Exchange and Domino.

At the time I didn’t see the combination as competitive with Applixware or even Q-Office, but recommended it for sale because it did one thing better than any competitive product I knew of: it stored everything as rows in the standard database.

Sun does not own OpenOffice.org and Oracle, accordingly, isn’t buying it - but because Sun does own the StarOffice product and is the primary contributor to OpenOffice.org, Oracle is buying both influence with, and responsibility to, that community.

If Sun and Oracle now recreate the full Oracle Office by combining Beehive with StarOffice, ensuring standardized database storage for all data, and open sourcing some of Oracle’s forms based development tools into the bargain, almost everyone stands to gain.

The obvious effect, of course, is to give OpenOffice a tremendous technical advantage over Microsoft Office while, at the same time, adding communications technologies and a real Access competitor.

I think, however, that two rather more subtle effects would dominate the future impact such a product would have.

First there’s the impact on the whole ODF scene. Right now, and for the past ten years, I’d argue that the eminently logical separation of storage from format is what’s enabled Microsoft to stall on ODF by keeping the brightly colored ball bouncing in the public eye while quietly and effectively selling internal integration as the justification for knee capping ODF at every opportunity.

Force content and format information to be stored in a single, consistent, way however and Microsoft’s wiggle room get reduced while accurate format conversions become easier - meaning that a new Oracle Office would ultimately have an enormous impact directly in terms of getting truly open document format standards widely accepted and used - and indirectly in terms of empowering the Linux desktop.

Second, for this to really work in light of Sun’s existing licensing commitments, Oracle would have to open source the database and communications components for Oracle Office. Since MySQL is well suited to the job and already open source, my guess is that the pros and cons of using it would then tilt in favor - meaning that my hypothetical Oracle Office would boost the MySQL community first by creating long term support commitments and secondly by putting it at the core of a lot of Exchange replacements.

One note:

  1. I’m assuming that Oracle will neither want, nor be able, to sell Sun’s MySQL asset as a going concern.

    The reason I’m making this assumption is that Sun’s billion dollars didn’t so much buy an asset as deny IBM the chance to increase Sun’s dependence on Oracle for hardware sales - meaning that there isn’t much there, and simply spinning the commitment off into a tax exempt foundation would return far less to Oracle shareholders than using MySQL to gain credibility and support in the open source community will.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Managing L'unix”

Paul Murphy (a pseudonym) is an IT consultant specializing in Unix and related technologies.

Disclosure

Paul Murphy

I do not work for, or otherwise receive anything from, any of the companies I write about. I have some money in a number of funds that bet on the markets, including the technology market, but have no direct control over how these funds are administered or what investments are made. I use Sun and Apple technology both at home and at work.

Biography

Paul Murphy

Originally a Math/Physics graduate who couldn't cut it in his own field, Paul Murphy (a pseudonym) became an IT consultant specializing in Unix and related technologies after a stint working for a DARPA contractor programming in Fortran and APL. Since then he's worked in both systems management and consulting for a range of employers including KPMG, the government of Alberta, and his own firm. In those roles he's "been there and done that" for just about every aspect of systems management and operation.

37
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Thanks, Roger.
Anton Philidor 7th May 2009
Inerrancy is not an advantage and it can annoy the self-assertive, you're right.

Continuity in computing can be expected even if Microsoft profits. The company supplements the essential desktop software with services on the net. The software + services strategy can be expected to increase, not decrease desktop Office sales. Not so right.

Oracle will make as much money as possible from Sun's assets, and that can include internal use of the software purchased. The company will also be able to expand its offerings, with the products optimized to work together.

But the question is, How much will Oracle be willing to invest? I expect the answer will be not much, because the potential returns have been limited by Sun's prior errors. So your comment was right, and that's effectively a further de-emphasis on Sun's devalued assets.

become a commodity. They will be (already are) moving up the chain to applications.

In the transition, Oracle will have the number one commodity database with the best monetization strategy, and be able to continue milking the best commercial database as long as possible in the process.
0 Votes
+ -
At one point it certainly looked like databases
would crawl up the stack an ultimately engulf
applications. That was the time of PL/SQL and
Trabsact/SQL (Sybase and later Microsoft). But
for the past 10 years (at least) the
architectural best practices have been a move
away from that line of thinking.

The big problem for both Oracle and Microsoft
is that databases are increasingly seen as
"just" the persistence layer. Thus reducing the
advantages of the feature-rich databases and
leveling the playing field. Most architects shy
away from putting too much business logic into
the databases as they are not as easily scaled
out as the application layer.
0 Votes
+ -
What??
GoPower 2nd May 2009
You'd put your application logic in Excel or Access? Databases are the storage of enterprise information, where better to put the logic, on someones desktop? Doh!!!
0 Votes
+ -
No, you put business logic
honeymonster 3rd May 2009
in the application tier. You relegate databases
to do what they do best: store, index and
retrieve things. Technical complexity (as
opposed to business logic) is ok to shift out
to the client/desktop, but never business
logic.

No, I would never allow desktops apps to
contain vital parts of my business logic. And I
will NEVER allows "output" from word or excel
to be fed back into the chain. Office suites
are personal productivity tools and they are
the "leafs" at best.
0 Votes
+ -
For example, you can allow regular users write access to the "requests" table. But for approval, you have another table with request key, and only approvers have write access to that table.

You could write a bunch of code to ensure that, but why, just let the data format do the heavy lifting.

Data entry forms and transformation of output data into reports is relatively trivial stuff, easily done by anything from an access form, to a web browser page (check out ODBscript for a very very easy tool to do this - even easier than PHP - you can quite easily webify your organisation's Access databases for example (or MS SQLserver, or any other ODBC database)).
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds like a db programmer
Roger Ramjet 4th May 2009
The 3-tier MVC architecture is predicated on moving the business logic to the MIDDLE layer - which is usually java. Stored procedures don't scale, and doing any business logic in the Db layer is usually a crutch (for Db programmers that don't understand MVC).

The database is JUST an organized place for data. There is no reason for it to do any business logic.
0 Votes
+ -
That's right
murph_z 5th May 2009
As I've said before the whole stored procedure business got started as a way of using the database to add multi-user capabilities to MS-DOS/Windows style systems.

0 Votes
+ -
Unless of course MS decides
John Zern 3rd May 2009
to Offer their full blown SQL in future MSOffice releases for a few dollars more.

THAT would take a bite out of Oracle, so it's a slippery slope Oracle's on if they are looking to get into the office suite arena.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think so, because:
murph_z 3rd May 2009
1 - MS has long promised a database OS comparable to PICK, but has yet to make it work;

2 - MS Office is strongly "client side" - incorporating SQL server as a backend makes lots of sense, continues the MS trend toward re-inventing the mainframe, and would be welcomed by many. However... it would also destroy the little remaining credibility that fat client has, annoy many small users, and gut their SQL server revenues.

On net, therefore, I don't think this is a starter for them.

3 - It would, I think, net out positive for the hypothetical Oracle Office - MS often follows open source directions, but I doubt they'd be able to hide this one, and that would boost OO = oracle office.

4- and, of course people who buy sql-server tend not to by Oracle applications anyway - so few losses there.
I don't see any compelling reason to use it over a regular SQL database however.

Also, Isn't Oracle tied in a bit (through Larry Ellison) to NetSuite? So they have a cloud presence already.
0 Votes
+ -
However, by choice, I'd use MySQL or Postgres because MS SQLServer is just too difficult to set up compared.

If you want a lot of guaranteed power, you'd choose DB2 or Oracle, because they are tried & tested.

Oracle has been playing against free databases for decades. MS SQLserver is practically free (or low cost).

Microsoft makingit free still wouldn't get me to use it.
0 Votes
+ -
SQL Server not free
Tim99 5th May 2009
Sorry, SQL Server is NOT Free in the Standard Edition Small Business
Server product.

Five users cost an extra $810 (60% more - Although you do get
another Windows Server licence, so you can put SQL Server on a
separate box).

The killer cost is when you start adding additional clients after the
first 5 users - An additional 10 users doubles the cost - Prices below:

Standard Edition 5CAL Premium Edition 5CAL
Full: $ 1,089.00 $ 1,899.00
Additional CALs:$ 77.00 $ 189.00
0 Votes
+ -
There are a lot of good products that can dominate the existing market, with the collaboration of products of Sun and Oracle. This is one good one.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Oracle Office, MySQL, and other dreams
DannyO_0x98 Updated - 2nd May 2009
These are interesting observations and historical facts, but
I'm skeptical regarding the speculation.

First, BerkeleyDB with its small footprint and reliance on
hashing might be a better fit for documents, in that the
styles a person uses is a very small subset of the
possibilities.

Second, you didn't indicate the year, but it's my sense that
it was in the early to mid 90s, when there were quite a few
problems which were attacked with relational theory. In
some cases, where trees were the natural or easier to
engineer choice, the structures stayed trees, because the
overhead of OR mapping and the performance hit of index
maintenance didn't translate into a value that could be sold
to the customer, beyond the buzzword. Can I get a Cairo?
Thank you.

Thinking about documents in particular, moving formatting
information to a normalized graph structure means a
particular style is a view that aggregates values from
various relations, including the not used and/or check with
the parent. It just looks to me that a document tree where
the nodes have links to hashed property-values lists is a
lot easier. While relations promote the ability to ask
questions such as "Where did I type Joe's name in bold
Futura with point size between 9 and 12.5 and in a non-
English language document," this sort of query doesn't
come up that frequently. Other advantages of a normalized
relational database, such as single-point modifications, are
as readily implemented with hashed styles any way. For
that matter, answering the above question about Joe could
be solved via mapTree. Since the indexes in
relational databases, which are there to accelerate
searches, are implemented as binary trees or hashes any
way, what's been gained?

Other specifics of Oracle/Sun/2009 come to mind, such as
MySql is favored for read-many write-rarely situations,
Google basically proved that mapReduce in parallel is
better for large heterogeneous databases which are in
constant flux, and I don't know that aggressively
competitive organizations really ever go back and resurrect
dead projects.
0 Votes
+ -
The most efficient document storage and search tech is the inverted binary index - something adabas had.

However the big deal here would be standardization: once its storable as a mysql row set, it's storable as anybody's row set - and accessible to any application using the same storage technology. Hence the ODF and integration implications...
0 Votes
+ -
Now That You Mention It
DannyO_0x98 Updated - 3rd May 2009
I did build in 1997 or so a fax/transmittal/contacts application which
was a front end to an Access 97 database and extended the database I
had started for jobs, purchase orders, receivables and check registers
(we sold contract furniture and provided professional architectural
services.) That database eventually collected time and expenses and
was a pretty complete small business accounting system and an okay
correspondence system. (Didn't handle memos, didn't have a
sophisticated permissions mechanism, didn't index text, and I didn't
set up keyword/meta-data.)

The take-away I had from the experience is that, for a services
company, the correspondence has to be tied into the accounting and
the gui for correspondence should be as typographically expressive as
a word processor. For aesthetic related services, such as architecture,
the look of the document is very important.

I've seen products which tackle these problems, but in my opinion
they suffer from being too expensive and being inflexible. From the
small business owners' perspective, project folders, templates/save as
Start/Search, and Quickbooks work well enough.

It's a clunky inelegant bubble gum and bailing wire cobbling of off-
the-shelf one size fits all personal software and it works only by virtue
of the reality that most of the stuff generated is saved, but doesn't
require re-finding.

But, believe you me, it's the finding of stuff when it needs to be found
that the small business owners register as a problem and thus a sales
opportunity. That having been said, the searches one can do from the
desktop have gotten a lot faster and require no upfront effort at
cataloging, tagging, or providing meta-data. The best search is
logarithmic (it's a mathematical limit), so I come back to my basic
point - hidden in a thicket of anecdote - Oracle didn't need MySql to
do this and I don't get the sense that Oracle brings back dead
projects. I could be wrong about this as I've never paid more than
cursory attention to Oracle's comings and goings. For the segment
where I have some experience, could Oracle deliver a product that
replaces Acrobat + In Design + PowerPoint + QuickBooks + Outlook +
Word/Excel and is affordable and generates the level of profit/revenue
that Oracle cares about? I'm doubtful about all three.
0 Votes
+ -
Sun controls OpenOffice.org
shis-ka-bob 2nd May 2009
Sun doesn't own OpenOffice.org, but does effectively control
the project. What I wonder about is what will happen to the
collaboration between Pentaho and OpenOffice.org to
integrate the Pentaho report tools. Pentaho works fine with
Oracle's database and MySQL, but will Oracle want to work
with a competitor in the BI market?
0 Votes
+ -
Not entirely true.....
linux for me 6th May 2009
The core part of OpenOffice is based on the same core as SunOffice. However, since the SunOffice core has been released as open source, it can be used by any one to buld on, or modify at will.

As long as you comply with the license, Sun does not have any control over the code. Sun can "steer" the development to try to keep compatibility between projects, but that is all Sun can do.

Come to think of it, Java is in exactly the position.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft already has plan to fight OpenOffice products. They are going to release ad-support office next year.

http://bionicoder.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/ad-supported-microsoft-office-may-be-available/

OpenOffice will be accepted by more users and occupy more market share if its GUI and user experience are improved. This will become possible as more investment coming in.
Office 2007 has been hampered by it's bad GUI.
Surely you aren't suggesting emulating Office 2007's poor performance in the marketplace??

That would be crazy.

I know more people using OpenOffice3.0 than Office2007 now, despite the freely available ripped off software versions of Office2007, and it isn't because these guys have suddenly developed a conscience.
0 Votes
+ -
the sooner someone creams one of their cash cows the better for IT in general.
The virtual monopoly that MS has with Office is ridiculous. It's the friggin stupid MS mindset control they have with businesses afraid to venture outside the MS fold. Business are wasting huge amounts of money thinking they need to follow this fold. Weak leadership and no ocjonnes. Maybe the economic downturn will allow some of these CTO MS Drone to grow some cojoones and get themselves off Office and save their companies some major dollars!
Seems to me like imposing mainframe paradigms to productivity packages, with all the good and bad that it entails. And having to have Oracle (or MySQL) forced on me (to write a letter) doesn't seem to be that free.
Uncheck the box in your package manager.
0 Votes
+ -
My guess is that the combined package would make very effective use of the rdbms storage engine for integration, backup, search, and portabiity, - and not require it for those who want to use one or more component packages as stand alone products.

But how this works out will up to the implementors and there clearly are some risks that their decisions could force limits on usage.
0 Votes
+ -
Predicting is exactly that, just a prediction and time will tell what will really happen. However, I do think history repeats itself.

What have Oracle really done with things like BerkleyDB or Siebel since they bought them? Have they actually put any effort and resources into building and developing those products or have they just left them as they pretty much were when they bought them and just kept milking them for the support revenue?

In my opinion, large FOSS projects such as OpenOffice and mySql with such a huge user base will be fine. If Oracle corp leaves them alone, they will continue their own "business as usual" routine. If Oracle gets pushy, they will just fork and then continue their "business as usual" routine.

p.s. It would be interesting if Oracle re-brand "MySql" and call it "MyOracle". I dread the day when I see the "Oracle Solaris" boot up logo; this has a very strong probability of actually happening. happy
0 Votes
+ -
A tremendous technical advantage?
tonymcs@... 3rd May 2009
Beehive and OpenOffice have a long way to go before they catch up to Office 2007 and before they get there MS will be another long way ahead.

I'm beginning to think you don't use these products Rudy.

Your column is like light from a distant sun. Fairly weak and long out of date wink
0 Votes
+ -
office 2007.. a long way ahead LOL
stevey_d 4th May 2009
A number of people I know FAR prefer OpenOffice 3.0 over Office 2007. Many common tasks take two or three times as many mouse clicks in Office 2007 over Office 2003.
A guy was showing me how Office 2007 had this "cool" feature where you select a bunch of cells in a spreadsheet, and it shows the total in the status bar at the bottom right.... I proved to him it was copied from a previous OpenOffice.

If you're trying to say that Sharepoint is a huge advantage, then I'm afraid I should point out that most of the world thinks Sharepoint is trash. Talked up in white papers, and the released product is very poor.
I have a box with Office 2003. Excel sums the highlighted cells. Right-click on the sum and you can select other options, as well. A quick internet search shows this was available in Office 2000, as well. When did OO release version 1?
So it was in both office packages about may2000 (office 2000) to april 2001 (build 523).

I'm not sure if there was prior art of this feature (ie they both copied it from somewhere else).
I wouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, the fact is, someone who moved from office97 to office2007 thought it was an innovation in office2007.

Just goes to show how ignorant people can be if they don't take the time to broaden their minds.
0 Votes
+ -
How does Oracle make money?
Anton Philidor 4th May 2009
Sun's experience has demonstrated that competing with Office in the open market is a failure. Repeating failure is not going to provide Oracle with the $1 billion increased profit promised very quickly.

But Oracle can make any of Sun's software part of a package, the stack sold. That increases Oracle profits by not having to pay Microsoft.

Isn't it more logical to make a small, safe profit than to make a major investment in publicizing and pushing a product which has already failed?

And for anyone whyo would argue the superiority of OpenOffice, how much have those pleased friends paid for the software?

Among the other advantages of Oracle as the owner of Sun is that a concentration on profits may be assumed.

The bigger question, as another poster noted, is whether Oracle will bother to make a major investment in products which have a loyal existing market and contributors eager to assure Oracle can lay off as many people as possible. Perhaps better to spend only enough to adapt the products sufficiently to make Oracle more profit on the sale of packages.
0 Votes
+ -
Anton, you're too funny
stevey_d 4th May 2009
In the massive corporation that was/is Sun, something like 20 guys worked on OpenOffice.

OpenOffice hasn't failed against Microsoft office, quite the opposite. If you'll recall, Microsoft sales and profit are down....

Were you under the impression that everyone in Sun Microsystems were working entirely on OpenOffice or something? That's how you post sounds...

Very funny.

Oracle make money by selling databases. They tend to be big and fast. (mostly maintenance revenue).
0 Votes
+ -
Sun thought StarOffice could win.
Anton Philidor 4th May 2009
Here are quotes from two articles in 2001:

On its Web site, Sun has this to say about StarOffice: "Markets include small business and home office, education, large enterprise with mixed-platform environments, and government." To be sure, there are markets where StarOffice is appropriate, but--and let's deal with this one right away--the U.S. corporate desktop is not one.

[The article is anti-Microsoft, but holds out little hope for a direct challenge.]

http://news.cnet.com/Is-StarOffice-ready-to-take-on-MS-Office/2010-1071_3-281550.html


Sun Microsystems is showing Linux fans the next version of StarOffice, the most viable competition to Microsoft's Office package, and will release the beta version in October.

Sun acquired StarOffice from Hamburg, Germany-based Star Division in 1999, and has made it available as a free download in an effort to undermine popular programs such as Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint that help to keep the Windows operating system dominant. The company also released the source code for the software under the General Public License (GPL), the same license that allows anyone to see, modify and distribute Linux software.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2094263,00.htm

Just another attempt to compete with Microsoft while other companies, especially IBM, too away Sun's market. Microsoft has been the White Whale to a number of Ahabs who brought down their companies in pursuit.

And do you want to assert that OpenOffice.org has found the way to success?


Also, Oracle has expanded beyond databases, seeing the future of that market. There have been a number of high profile and expensive purchases.


Sorry, but I suggest a review of pertinent information before criticizing my premises.




Really, you seem to be equating Sun to OpenOffice. This is totally ludicrous if you know how many people were actually working on OpenOffice (hardly any).

"Just another attempt to compete with Microsoft while other companies, especially IBM, too away Sun's market. Microsoft has been the White Whale to a number of Ahabs who brought down their companies in pursuit."

This is a total strawman argument. You make the assertion that Sun=OpenOffice, and then assume that it was this product that was their undoing.

Very bizarre. What companies have been brought down in Microsoft pursuit?

I really strongly think that Sun isn't one. Sun's problems are that it was in the main a single product pony. It made Sun workstations/servers. As time rolled on, they just failed to diversify.

It happened to Xerox before Sun.
Microsoft are in exactly the same situation. They've failed to successfully diversify beyond the Desktop/Office, and products like OpenOffice and GoogleApps are eroding it's core market.

Microsoft figures this year speak for themselves.

It could be argued that the only corporation that truly has diversified in recent times is Apple.
Moving from Personal Computers to iPods/music to iPhones. All have been quite lucrative.

Other one horse ponies are: Intel (could be attacked by ARM from changes in the market), Nintendo, Oracle (databases).

I'm not really sure if Google constitutes The Cloud inc in which case it's a one product pony. Time will tell I guess.
0 Votes
+ -
You truly are an idiot
Kaiwai 6th May 2009
The lack of progress speaks volumes as to the terrible management, vision and leadership within Sun than anything to do with some mystical and inherent 'perfection' associated with Microsoft Office. If OpenOffice.org fails to grab share under Oracle, it will because of the terrible management, vision and leadership within Oracle. If you provide no leadership to your employee's, you provide no vision to your employee's - your company is doomed to failure.
0 Votes
+ -
No he's not
Roger Ramjet 6th May 2009
but he IS very annoying! wink

Anton is all about applications. His world view is "old school" M$ - where client-side apps are used in small workgroups to get things done. Even M$ has recognized that this is not the future - with their "Office Live" and Assur cloud offerings.

"Closed" Office vs. OpenOffice is becoming more of a real "race". Oo gets better all the time and since it's free - the ROI of ClosedOffice gets less and less. Eventually the tide will turn in Oo's direction - when that happens is anyone's guess.

Sun promised to make StarO (daylight come and every body go home) into a java app. This would have made StarO run on all platforms (without forking). Sun reneged on their promise and StarO is just another packaged app (that finally runs on OS/X). When I was involved in porting it to HP-UX - the codebase was a nightmare. I assume that it's better now . . .

What will Oracle do with it? They will convert all of their companies to use it instead of ClosedOffice. That includes Sun, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Sybase, etc. They will make it more interoperable with Oracle's products and possibly drop "Base" for MySQL.

Do they have the right management team? I don't think you could do worse than Sun's management team - so that's a plus. Larry wouldn't pay for something and then throw it away - he's not stupid. He will give all of Sun's assets time to mature. He might drop something in the future, but for now he want's it all . . .
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks, Roger.
Anton Philidor 7th May 2009
Inerrancy is not an advantage and it can annoy the self-assertive, you're right.

Continuity in computing can be expected even if Microsoft profits. The company supplements the essential desktop software with services on the net. The software + services strategy can be expected to increase, not decrease desktop Office sales. Not so right.

Oracle will make as much money as possible from Sun's assets, and that can include internal use of the software purchased. The company will also be able to expand its offerings, with the products optimized to work together.

But the question is, How much will Oracle be willing to invest? I expect the answer will be not much, because the potential returns have been limited by Sun's prior errors. So your comment was right, and that's effectively a further de-emphasis on Sun's devalued assets.

0 Votes
+ -
Oracle is a publicly traded company.
DevGuy_z 5th May 2009
Which means it has a legal responsibility to its investors to make a profit. What will drive Oracle then is not what technology is the coolest but what will sell and make a profit.

Java is highly successful but wasn't profitable for Sun or at least not in the way the investors would have wanted it. Neither was SunRay.

Oracle is interested in Open Source only to the degree they can make money at it. Lots of it. That is not wrong. That is business.

So all speculation about what Oracle could or would do must keep this at the fore-front: Oracle is a business first and an advocate second.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix