There has been a lot of discussion of GNU/Linux versus Linux. I am not clear on one point. It is said that GNU is the operating system and Linux is the kernel. I have been going through Stallman's essays and FSF literature for the past few hours and am unable to come up with an answer to this question:
What precisely are the applications/tools that comprise the GNU operating system?
On 12/28/06, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
What precisely are the applications/tools that comprise the GNU operating system?
when in doubt ask wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
should help answer many of questions
HRB
On 29-Dec-06, at 7:33 AM, Harsh Busa wrote:
What precisely are the applications/tools that comprise the GNU operating system?
when in doubt ask wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
ok - GCC, glibc, bash, binutils, coreutils. That is the GNU operating system.
ok - GCC, glibc, bash, binutils, coreutils. That is the GNU operating system.
i don't think that would be completely right. GNU is not a production ready operating system(yet). Only with a kernel like Linux, xBSD, etc... can you call it an operating system. Though it is said that when HURD is production ready, that entity can be called the GNU operating system.
Regards,
- vihan
On 29-Dec-06, at 11:02 AM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
ok - GCC, glibc, bash, binutils, coreutils. That is the GNU operating system.
i don't think that would be completely right. GNU is not a production ready operating system(yet). Only with a kernel like Linux, xBSD, etc... can you call it an operating system. Though it is said that when HURD is production ready, that entity can be called the GNU operating system.
then what happens to the slogan 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system'?
On 12/29/06, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 29-Dec-06, at 11:02 AM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
ok - GCC, glibc, bash, binutils, coreutils. That is the GNU operating system.
i don't think that would be completely right. GNU is not a production ready operating system(yet). Only with a kernel like Linux, xBSD, etc... can you call it an operating system. Though it is said that when HURD is production ready, that entity can be called the GNU operating system.
then what happens to the slogan 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system'?
Linux is *a* kernel, in the sense that linux is one of GNU's kernels. Get any free kernel and combine with the GNU system, you get a free *nix operating system.
Nagarjuna
then what happens to the slogan 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system'?
i don't think anyone(to the best of my knowledge) has has ever said 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system'. People have called it 'the GNU system and the Linux kernel' or 'the GNU system and FreeBSD kernel'. The line 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system' is a little ``ambiguous". You need both for a complete an operating system.
Regards,
- vihan
On 29-Dec-06, at 1:28 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
GNU system and the Linux kernel' or 'the GNU system and FreeBSD kernel'. The line 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system' is a little ``ambiguous"
i see it in the sigs of many people - next time i see it i will forward to you
Hi,
On 12/29/06, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 29-Dec-06, at 11:02 AM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
<snip>
i don't think that would be completely right. GNU is not a production ready operating system(yet). Only with a kernel like Linux, xBSD, etc... can you call it an operating system. Though it is said that when HURD is production ready, that entity can be called the GNU operating system.
then what happens to the slogan 'linux is the kernel and GNU is the operating system'?
A nice resource would be GNU/Linux faq.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
A nice resource would be GNU/Linux faq.
i guess that's the last word in that discussion :-)
Regards,
- vihan
On 29-Dec-06, at 1:53 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
A nice resource would be GNU/Linux faq.
i guess that's the last word in that discussion :-)
i raised these doubts because i couldnt understand the FAQ. That clearly talks of the GNU operating system. Now you say it is not an operating system. As far as I can see, it is a set of tools and not an operating system. And I find this pleading for credit pathetic. You write software, tools, whatever. People use them. They become popular. You become famous. Somthing overshadows what you did. People stop praising you and start praising that something. Hard luck. It happens - no point moaning about it and pleading for credit. The world is not about what you do, but about who did it at the right time and in the right place. For the same reason that photostating machines are called Xerox machines.
i guess that's the last word in that discussion :-)
i raised these doubts because i couldnt understand the FAQ. That clearly talks of the GNU operating system.
The GNU operating system can only be so called if it has the GNU tools and the HURD kernel according to what i have read. The aim of GNU was to build a complete operating system. The started out, and gradually more people other than GNU also chipped in, Linus started the kernel project inspired from Minix, then GNU and Linux became a complete operating system.
Other communities BSD, X, ASF and non GNU Free Software also became a part of the system.
And I find this pleading for credit pathetic.
i don't think anyone EVER pleaded for credit here. Please do not exaggarate things.
You write software, tools, whatever. People use them. They become
popular. You become famous. Somthing overshadows what you did. People stop praising you and start praising that something.
The entire naming business, is simply for people to not forget the value system of freedom that GNU stands for. Some people it may think it does not matter, but others do.
Pleople NEED to be made aware of the dangers of Software Patents, DRM, Non Disclosure Agreements and other evils. Is it REALLY that horrible to associate this noble task with the operating system we all love, and that was the motivation behind the movement which started this. LET US NOT FORGET THAT - IT IS A FACT.
Hard luck. It
happens - no point moaning about it and pleading for credit.
please read the above
The
world is not about what you do, but about who did it at the right time and in the right place.
giving the right reason is also important
For the same reason that photostating
machines are called Xerox machines.
GNU is NOT a commercial organisation, and the analogy is quite out of context.
Regards,
- vihan
On 29-Dec-06, at 3:44 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
The entire naming business, is simply for people to not forget the value system of freedom that GNU stands for. Some people it may think it does not matter, but others do.
the only people who think it matters are those pleading for credit
The entire naming business, is simply for people to not forget the value system of freedom that GNU stands for. Some people it may think it does not matter, but others do.
the only people who think it matters are those pleading for credit
Are you implying that ``everyone" who thinks so is ``pleading for credit"? If you are, well that's totally incorrect. If this entire thing was only about credit then the guy who started this would have called it ``The Stallman Project", ``The Stallmacs Editor", ``The Stallman Compiler", ``Stallmake", ``Stallmson lexical analyzer" and finally ``The Stallman Public License".
But he chose NOT to tie his name to a project to inflate his ego. Only people who want to polish their ego would do that.
For the record. i haven't contributed an iota of code in ANY free software repository till today. i do not deserve any ``credit" nor am i lame enough to ``plead" for it if i did. But i choose to say the word GNU with the name of the operating system because i believe in the value of freedom.
i don't think it is right to generalise all of GNU as ``pleading for credit", in fact its insulting a LOT of very dedicated people who believe in changing the world and making a difference.
Regards,
- vihan
--- Vihan Pandey wrote:
For the record. i haven't contributed an iota of code in ANY free software repository till today.
That comes as a combination of shock and suprise to me. When I attended my first GLUG BOM meet, way back in Feb 2006, I thought you were one among the GNU programmers.
(At the first instance, I even thought you were a foreigner, but realized that you weren't, when you said "I use Debian GNU/Linux")
Coming back to this thread, (related to Linux Brochure in a way), according to me, Mr. JTD has added an important perspective of what GNU is in GNU/Linux. In fact, a better way to tell newbies what GNU stands for in GNU/Linux, rather than fighting for credits!
-- FSF-India Fellow Associate http://www.gnu.org.in
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
On 12/29/06, Roshan d_rosh2001@yahoo.co.in wrote:
in a way), according to me, Mr. JTD has added an important perspective of what GNU is in GNU/Linux. In fact, a better way to tell newbies what GNU stands for in GNU/Linux, rather than fighting for credits!
True, but it all looks like fighting for credit doesn't it? And in many ways I still feel it is. It is JTDs perspective and it's definitely a good one, no doubt. It's a bit like the "rights for the poor" perspective when one argues against slums demolition.
Regards,
It's a bit like the "rights for the poor" perspective when one argues against slums demolition.
You could have chosen a better analogy.
Anyway, it seems like those who are convinced that GNU is simply trying to grab credit would choose to believe nothing else.
Do the same also believe that when software patents are fought in Europe, its a gimmick?
Do the same also believe that when anti DRM protests are held, its a publicity stunt?
consider what you say people. Anything without a philosophical background crumbles away after a time. Its not just about the code, or inventions. Its ideas and philosophy behind code and inventions that eventually shape the course of man and the world.
Regards,
- vihan
On Friday 29 December 2006 18:34, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 12/29/06, Roshan d_rosh2001@yahoo.co.in wrote:
in a way), according to me, Mr. JTD has added an important perspective of what GNU is in GNU/Linux. In fact, a better way to tell newbies what GNU stands for in GNU/Linux, rather than fighting for credits!
True, but it all looks like fighting for credit doesn't it? And in many ways I still feel it is. It is JTDs perspective and it's definitely a good one, no doubt. It's a bit like the "rights for the poor" perspective when one argues against slums demolition.
I just went thru (once again) some of the gnu.org pages. The point stressed everywhere is the freedom aspect. Regarding credit it appears in only one place directly and might seem to be claiming credit (by a substantial stretch of my imagination atleast) indirectly in two more places. In every talk of RMS the credit part occupies approx. 2 mins in a 120 min lecture about freedom. 1.6% that is. Looks like many have a deadly allergy to freedom.
Whoever started this nonsense about credit is talking without basis.
The GNU acronym is NOT about credit. It is about freedom.
Freedom scares businesses according to some from the OSI. As though we owe our existence for the benefit of businesses.
While the osi seem to be doing a so-so job of inducing businesses to the benefits of FOSS, the reality is not that nice. Read Harald Welte's blog on embedded systems code to understand the futulity of sweet talking business into FOSS.
While sweet talking they dont seem to be pointing out the obligations. Or bringing to heel (or even initiating dialog) with violators.
So Osi (similiar well intentioned others) starts a mess and people like Harald Welte have to do the cleanup. Shades of BSD in there - well intentioned and productive though they are.
The issues at hand are simple. But presenting and making it acceptable is not. And it's most certainly not about credit.
For the record. i haven't contributed an iota of code in ANY free software repository till today.
That comes as a combination of shock and suprise to me. When I attended my first GLUG BOM meet, way back in Feb 2006, I thought you were one among the GNU programmers.
you thought? Long hair and a long beard is generally(without any offence to anyone) a sign of someone with a lousy sense of appearance keeping, which i very well admit too ;-) Please don't assume things about people on the fly, appearances can very well be decieving. You could have just asked me, what i do and i would have told so in complete honesty. NEVER be in awe of ANY techie/looks_like_techie/big gun/whatever, who so ever it be.
(At the first instance, I even thought you were a
foreigner,
that's a first. i should have spoken to you in Hindi, that would have been fun :-)
but realized that you weren't, when you
said "I use Debian GNU/Linux")
:-)
Regards,
- vihan
--- Vihan Pandey wrote:
Please don't assume things about people on the fly, appearances can very well be decieving.
I'll keep this in mind.
You could have just asked me, what i do and i would have told so in complete honesty.
At that time, didn't have the guts. (First GLUG-BOM meet)
that's a first. i should have spoken to you in Hindi, that would have been fun :-)
:) Anyways language wasn't a criteria for assessing.
P. S. Kept this OT offlist. I hope you don't mind.
-- FSF-India Fellow Associate http://www.gnu.org.in
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
On 29-Dec-06, at 6:04 PM, Roshan wrote:
For the record. i haven't contributed an iota of code in ANY free software repository till today.
That comes as a combination of shock and suprise to me. When I attended my first GLUG BOM meet, way back in Feb 2006, I thought you were one among the GNU programmers.
and he is being too modest - he has written a couple of chapters of a kick-ass CS engineering textbook, but for some reason it has not seen the light of day yet. We need to light a fire under him and get it out into the open
On 12/29/06, Roshan d_rosh2001@yahoo.co.in wrote:
--- Vihan Pandey wrote:
For the record. i haven't contributed an iota of code in ANY free software repository till today.
That comes as a combination of shock and suprise to me. When I attended my first GLUG BOM meet, way back in Feb 2006, I thought you were one among the GNU programmers.
When rms had turned up in Bombay, I mistook Vihan for rms himself :) And asked for an autograph too! :)
Regards, Mohan S N
Hi,
On 12/30/06, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
When rms had turned up in Bombay, I mistook Vihan for rms himself :) And asked for an autograph too! :)
Yes, me too almost, but just that I was lying on the hospital bed under sedation with pipes coming out of my body and some such, so benefit of doubt goes to me surely. But I am quite certain he looked like RMS at that point of time.
Cheers!
Pradeepto
When rms had turned up in Bombay, I mistook Vihan for rms himself :) And asked for an autograph too! :)
Hmm...Vihan made a good phishing attempt, didn't he? =P
On the contrary, i was first a bit curious and surprised as to why someone was asking for my autograph, when the reason became clear, i politely told the person that i was not ``the man" and laughed at the incident like all those around ;-)
Anyway, i don't look anything like RMS from any angle. Just compare my pic to his and you'll see.
Regards,
- vihan
On 12/29/06, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
i raised these doubts because i couldnt understand the FAQ. That clearly talks of the GNU operating system. Now you say it is not an operating system. As far as I can see, it is a set of tools and not an operating system.
I guess you're missing the context. The GNU operating system was the original stated objective of the GNU project - a complete usable system with applications and libraries - capable of functioning stand-alone. So ...
1. when we say a "GNU operating system" or simple "GNU", we mean a *pure* GNU system including a GNU kernel (hurd). 2. when we say "GNU/Linux" - we mean a part of the GNU operating system *mated* with the Linux kernel. In this case, the GNU part does NOT by itself form an operating system.
Now the correctness of *your favourite signature* depends on the context in which GNU is used. It is correct for the 1st one and incorrect for the 2nd one. In all it is an ambiguous statement. Hope this clarifies your confusion. If it doesn't, take issue with the English language and not with GNU or FSF :-p
. farazs
On 12/29/06, Faraz Shahbazker faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com wrote:
- when we say "GNU/Linux" - we mean a part of the GNU operating
system *mated* with the Linux kernel. In this case, the GNU part does NOT by itself form an operating system.
The GNU system has *mated* with so many other apps now that it's difficult to stop at GNU/Linux ;-)
Zlib for example is used by quite a few GNU apps (tls library, gnupg and related apps, gcj, gij, gnome, etc) but it is not developed by GNU, nor is it licensed under GPL.
Why is GNU so adamant about calling the OS as only GNU/* and not GNU/Apache/PHP/X11/(the list goes on...)* if their agenda was to give *all* developers of the OS credit?
Regards,
On 12/29/06, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
Why is GNU so adamant about calling the OS as only GNU/* and not GNU/Apache/PHP/X11/(the list goes on...)* if their agenda was to give *all* developers of the OS credit?
Please read the above mentioned FAQ. Your question is already answered there. You may [not] agree with it; but to say the least it proves that your statement "GNU is adamant about GNU/* and not ... " is clearly incorrect.
. farazs
On 12/29/06, Faraz Shahbazker wrote:
Please read the above mentioned FAQ. Your question is already answered there. You may [not] agree with it; but to say the least it proves that your statement "GNU is adamant about GNU/* and not ... " is clearly incorrect.
It's a chicken & egg situation. "Linux can't do anything without GNU" and "GNU is nothing without Linux"... oh wait GNU will have Hurd... whenever it is ready...
Also, I feel that it's unfair that any contribution to FOSS be called "secondary", especially key contributions such as Linux, X.org, Apache... stuff without which Linux would never have gained any recognition.
Vihan wrote:
Anyway, it seems like those who are convinced that GNU is simply trying to grab credit would choose to believe nothing else.
They're not wrong in asking for recognition for their work, so I wouldn't say grab credit. It's just they they want everything that has their tool suite (namely, all Linux distros) to have GNU/Linux instead of Linux as recognition since "they are the principal contributors".
Regards,
On Saturday 30 December 2006 18:32, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
It's a chicken & egg situation. "Linux can't do anything without GNU" and "GNU is nothing without Linux"... oh wait GNU will have Hurd... whenever it is ready...
irrelevant. You can use the gnu tools, as also tons of other FOSS stuff without a linux kernel. See my earlier mail. Everyone can decide which is more important based on their own logic.
Also, I feel that it's unfair that any contribution to FOSS be called "secondary", especially key contributions such as Linux, X.org, Apache... stuff without which Linux would never have gained any recognition.
Absolutely. not just linux, neither would have the FSF or X.org or Apache, or KDE. All of them have been instrumental in everybody else's success. The common thread running thru them is the ecosystem of freedom afforded and protected by the GNU GPL. and that is what the FSF is shouting about. In an attempt to pander to popular taste do not dilute the freedom message. State it once at the beginning and once in the end. Fill the inbetween with whatever takes your fancy.
They're not wrong in asking for recognition for their work, so I wouldn't say grab credit. It's just they they want everything that has their tool suite (namely, all Linux distros) to have GNU/Linux instead of Linux as recognition since "they are the principal contributors".
How on earth did u jump to that conclusion. The fsf website states clearly and accurately that accreditation is of limited importance. But the principle of freedom is uneqivivocally important. Organisations like the OSI went about approving licences like the CDDL and Nokia Open Source License (NOKOS License) Version 1.0 both of which cannot be termed free by any stretch of imagination. And yet we have people labelling gpld stuff as open source. They are as different as cheese and cyanide.
On 12/30/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
irrelevant. You can use the gnu tools, as also tons of other FOSS stuff without a linux kernel. See my earlier mail. Everyone can decide which is more important based on their own logic.
Exactly, and on the same lines everyone can decide what they want to name their distribution. I understand that GNU doesn't force anyone, but seems like they would probably withdraw from everything that doesn't have the word GNU.
Absolutely. not just linux, neither would have the FSF or X.org or Apache, or KDE. All of them have been instrumental in everybody else's success.
Absolutely, and I guess we need to concentrate on that rather than bicker to each other about the name (myself included ;-) )
Regards,
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 12/30/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Absolutely. not just linux, neither would have the FSF or X.org or Apache, or KDE. All of them have been instrumental in everybody else's success.
Absolutely, and I guess we need to concentrate on that rather than bicker to each other about the name (myself included ;-) )
Excellent point.. however the list needs better guidelines on flaming, so let me present http://www.ls-l.net/flame.html (a must read, if you haven't already)
A happy new year to all on the list.. get away from the screen and enjoy.
cheers (hic), - dhawal
This is Soc.WOMEN, DAMMIT!!
On 12/30/06, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/30/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
irrelevant. You can use the gnu tools, as also tons of other FOSS stuff without a linux kernel. See my earlier mail. Everyone can decide which is more important based on their own logic.
Exactly, and on the same lines everyone can decide what they want to name their distribution. I understand that GNU doesn't force anyone, but seems like they would probably withdraw from everything that doesn't have the word GNU.
Not true. If the Linux kernel project, and their advocates ever preached software freedom, then the term 'Linux' could have become a symbol of software freedom too. The reason why it is not is because they have expressed explicitly that they don't care about software freedom. That is the crux of the matter. GNU project wants several other free software projects flourish, as long as they talk of freedom. Wikipedia is a good example. They use GNU FDL license, we didn't ask them to call it GNUpedia. In fact the original gnupedia project was abandoned in support of wikipedia (read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUpedia) The reason is simple. wikipedia project stands for free knowledge and free software, it is in tune with the GNU manifesto. All the GNU hackers supported Jimmy's project and gave it the required momentum to make it successful.
If a project stands for software freedom, name does not matter. That is what JTD said, we are not asking for credit, we are asking to uphold software freedom.
Nagarjuna
Not true. If the Linux kernel project, and their advocates ever
preached software freedom, then the term 'Linux' could have become a symbol of software freedom too. The reason why it is not is because they have expressed explicitly that they don't care about software freedom. That is the crux of the matter. GNU project wants several other free software projects flourish, as long as they talk of freedom.
hahahah....another pointless intellectual debate wasting bandwidth, time and arriving to no conclusion!
On 12/31/06, Harshal Vaidya harshalx@gmail.com wrote:
hahahah....another pointless intellectual debate wasting bandwidth, time and arriving to no conclusion!
That's totally unfair. Not every post is interesting to every person on the list. The fact that some people are discussing this matter means that it is important to them. You may not feel the same way - that doesn't give you the right to heckle at others.
If you think it's pointless then don't say anything - that would be much better.
. farazs
That's totally unfair. Not every post is interesting to every person
on the list. The fact that some people are discussing this matter means that it is important to them. You may not feel the same way - that doesn't give you the right to heckle at others.
I agree that people are responding and hence the discussion means to them. But its pointless and there have been millions of such discussions which never do any good at all.
Thanks and Regards, Harshal Vaidya.
------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.lakhpatipage.com Cheapest way to advertise on the internet -------------------------------------------------------------
On 31-Dec-06, at 8:46 AM, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
Wikipedia is a good example. They use GNU FDL license, we didn't ask them to call it GNUpedia. In fact the original gnupedia project was abandoned in support of wikipedia
not true. it was abandoned because it went phut. which is what is going to happen to hurd also.
Wikipedia is a good example. They use GNU FDL license, we didn't ask them to call it GNUpedia. In fact the original gnupedia project was abandoned in support of wikipedia
not true. it was abandoned because it went phut. which is what is going to happen to hurd also.
Only time will tell. If the world needs a a distributed nano kernel tomorrow, where else will they look?
Regards,
- vihan
On Saturday 30 December 2006 23:14, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 12/30/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
irrelevant. You can use the gnu tools, as also tons of other FOSS stuff without a linux kernel. See my earlier mail. Everyone can decide which is more important based on their own logic.
Exactly, and on the same lines everyone can decide what they want to name their distribution. I understand that GNU doesn't force anyone, but seems like they would probably withdraw from everything that doesn't have the word GNU.
Also pointed out in an earlier mail two licences approved by OSI which is most certainly not free. U can't take parts of the source under those licences and use it somewhere else. So anyone who says open source == freesoftware is talking crap.
Once u are aware of the fact - which newbies are certainl not - u may call your distro whatever u fancy. If u tell a newbie opensource== freesoftware you are now deliberately misleading them. And why would one do such a thing - beats me.
On 01-Jan-07, at 1:27 PM, jtd wrote:
those licences and use it somewhere else. So anyone who says open source == freesoftware is talking crap.
nobody says it - both sides make a clear distinction
On 29-Dec-06, at 6:12 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Why is GNU so adamant about calling the OS as only GNU/* and not GNU/Apache/PHP/X11/(the list goes on...)* if their agenda was to give *all* developers of the OS credit?
from the FAQ it looks like they feel they thought of it first - so need the lions share of the credit
On Friday 29 December 2006 08:04, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 29-Dec-06, at 7:33 AM, Harsh Busa wrote:
What precisely are the applications/tools that comprise the GNU operating system?
when in doubt ask wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
ok - GCC, glibc, bash, binutils, coreutils. That is the GNU operating system.
That is what u will need WITH a kernel - any kenel (bsd, mach, plan9, qnx, reactos etc AFAIK) to make an operating system. Remove these and u cant do a thing with the kernel - any kernel.
But we are meandering into the forest, arguing about attribution only. And again missing the main point. The attribution is important only because it points to the importance of freedom and the dangers of not making people acutely aware of the fact.
-
Dhawal Doshy -
Dinesh Joshi -
Faraz Shahbazker -
Harsh Busa -
Harshal Vaidya -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Mohan Nayaka -
Nagarjuna G. -
nipra -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Roshan -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
Vihan Pandey