Since two days I released the RC2 to sf.net
What's our plan for the next release (candidate)?
As you may see, I went to RAR concerning sources and map files. I don't know whether this is such a good idea. At least the size relation convinced me. Map: 17MB vs. 30MB or Src: 15MB vs. 27MB I think for people still working with modem this is an advance (even if they have to search to unrar). The difference in sizes seems to me is the solid kind of archive. Thus tarbz2 should do the same
Comments?
I'd rather go with a free compression scheme like gzip, bzip, or 7-Zip. RAR is too buggy on GNU/Linux...
7-zip is certainly one of the better compression options. There are many windows applications available for decompression, winrar, powerarchiver, zip genius... Im not sure about linux when it comes to 7z archives. Do the 7-Zip sources compile under linux?
0.26 rc2 .7z is compressed to 12.8mb as against 15.1mb rar archive.
Mike Swanson wrote:
I'd rather go with a free compression scheme like gzip, bzip, or 7-Zip. RAR is too buggy on GNU/Linux...
Mike Swanson wrote:
I'd rather go with a free compression scheme like gzip, bzip, or 7-Zip. RAR is too buggy on GNU/Linux...
I think it would be a good idea to provide cdrom image, binaries and source in various formats because: - zip opens in many platforms, however it has a bad compression tax, and is proprietary... - 7-zip is a very good compression format, but it doesn't open on Linux/Unix... - (tar.)bzip2 is also very good but it is special for Unix/Linux! - RAR has a better compression that zip, but it is proprietary...
Why don't you provide it both in 7-zip and in bzip2?
João Jerónimo
7-Zip is written for VisualC++, however p7zip is a (fully working) port of 7-Zip to gcc. Thus, it can be used on Linux and many other Unices.
From: Robert Köpferl
As you may see, I went to RAR concerning sources and map files. I don't know whether this is such a good idea.
I don't think it is. .zip is far more widespread in the Windows world than .rar. My personal opinion is that we should stick with "standard" stuff as much as possible and not require people to download yet another tool.
If you really think .rar (or whatever other format for that matter) is better because of size, maybe provide both (.rar and .zip).
Gé van Geldorp.
I use slow and expensive gprs connection. Downloading 12MB instead of 27MB will be very good for people like me.
Providing .rar is actually far better than providing only .zip, since people usually value their money.
If you think .rar isn't widespread enough (though it's popularity almost equals Zip's one), then it's wise to provide both archives - but I don't see really a purpose for this. Download one time free rar unpacker tool - and spend twice less on downloading sourcecode.
Anyway we can see what people prefer better - do it with .zip and with .rar, and sourceforge shows us the statistics for the most downloadable file :-)
WBR, Aleksey.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Saveliy Tretiakov" saveliyt@mail.ru To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.com Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Ros 0.2.6-RC2 on sf.net
I use slow and expensive gprs connection. Downloading 12MB instead of 27MB will be very good for people like me. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Hi,
Providing .rar is actually far better than providing only .zip, since people usually value their money.
We could also package the distribution files into self extracting archives. Then you don't need to install WinRAR / 7-zip itself. This works at least for Windows. Linux users would have to extract the archives using the unrar command line.
Regards,
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Aleksey Bragin Sent: 3. april 2005 12:19 To: ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Ros 0.2.6-RC2 on sf.net
Providing .rar is actually far better than providing only .zip, since people usually value their money.
If you think .rar isn't widespread enough (though it's popularity almost equals Zip's one), then it's wise to provide both archives - but I don't see really a purpose for this. Download one time free rar unpacker tool - and spend twice less on downloading sourcecode.
Anyway we can see what people prefer better - do it with .zip and with .rar, and sourceforge shows us the statistics for the most downloadable file :-)
WBR, Aleksey.
The minimum tool dependency policy works great for us and I think we should stick to it. It's not just a one time download of an unrar application and be done with it. Each user must locate, download, and install this unrar tool on each machine that does not have it installed already. This is a manual process. At least with zip there is a higher chance that the user need only to download the archive. Even if it takes longer then, once the download is initiated, the user can go do something else in the meantime. We want to attract new users to this project and one large factor in doing this successfully is to make it as easy to use ReactOS as possible.
ReactOS is GPL, so anyone that wants to put in the effort can repackage the releases and put them up for download.
Casper
Are you saying that rar compresses files twice as well as zip? I have not used rar in quite some time but if memory serves, it was at most a few percent better compression than zip, and took much longer to execute.
If it really is that much better compression then by all means we should offer it, though a zip should also be offered since it does not require a third party tool.
Saveliy Tretiakov wrote:
I use slow and expensive gprs connection. Downloading 12MB instead of 27MB will be very good for people like me. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
RAR compress alot better that zip in most case.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Phillip Susi" psusi@cfl.rr.com To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.com Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Ros 0.2.6-RC2 on sf.net
Are you saying that rar compresses files twice as well as zip? I have not used rar in quite some time but if memory serves, it was at most a few percent better compression than zip, and took much longer to execute.
If it really is that much better compression then by all means we should offer it, though a zip should also be offered since it does not require a third party tool.
Saveliy Tretiakov wrote:
I use slow and expensive gprs connection. Downloading 12MB instead of 27MB will be very good for people like me. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
What about compression options? Have you tried zipping with the highest compression level? Either way I think we should keep zip (for its popularity) but perhaps add rar if it really does offer much better compression.
Cheers Jason
On Apr 3, 2005 7:36 PM, Magnus Olsen magnus@itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
RAR compress alot better that zip in most case.
Yes I have. But zip are more common at people home. Some people does not like rar.
The bast way are keeping both rar and zip so people can choice what they like more.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Filby" jason.filby@gmail.com To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.com Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Ros 0.2.6-RC2 on sf.net
What about compression options? Have you tried zipping with the highest compression level? Either way I think we should keep zip (for its popularity) but perhaps add rar if it really does offer much better compression.
Cheers Jason
On Apr 3, 2005 7:36 PM, Magnus Olsen magnus@itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
RAR compress alot better that zip in most case.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Magnus Olsen wrote:
Yes I have. But zip are more common at people home. Some people does not like rar.
The bast way are keeping both rar and zip so people can choice what they like more.
While I haven't seen many projects that use RAR, it's definately possible. 7-Zip supports the format, as well, or at least, it claims to on it's website. People could be provided with a link to that, and they can download/install that and use it to decompress things that are compressed using RAR. I guess it would just come down to what compresses better: 7-Zip or RAR?
Since there is free software for both (the 7-Zip application is LGPL), it seems that it could be a viable choice. Also, with it being LGPL, it's possible to choose it as a default archiver for ReactOS, as it supports a decent number of formats: 7z, ZIP, CAB, RAR, ARJ, GZIP, BZIP2, Z, TAR, CPIO, and RPM/DEB files. It also claims to create .ZIP files that are 2 - 10% better then ones created by WinZip and PKZip, and like any good archiver, creates self extracting archives for it's own format.
- From a user-standpoint in the States, it doesn't make much of a difference to me. I have a 6 Mb connection at home, and a 1Gb+ connecton at work. However, if I were still on dialup, I'd say that it'd be a good idea to keep with whatever is smallest. On 7-zip's home page is some statistics. I don't have the time to download and try it out myself with various formats to see what is the best, but I'd say it would be worth it to run a complete comparison and see what wins out, or just go with whatever formats are supported by 7-Zip since it's free.
- Mike
- -- Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
7-Zip's RAR (uncompress only) is licensed from WinRAR, so you still have to download the proprietary RAR in these ways: 1. The 'unrar' for Linux 2. WinRAR 3. 7-Zip's RAR implementation is licensed from WinRAR, so they cannot give out source to RAR. (p7zip, for example, does not have RAR support at all) 4. Any other program with RAR licensed from WinRAR.
Why bother with RAR at all? Zip is far more popular, but if you want the better compression ratio, 7Zip would be the better option. Also, what you have to keep in mind is the target audience. I think people who are interesting in downloading source code for ReactOS are going to have 7Zip handy tools, or know where to get them.
Of course the last thing you want to do is scare someone off because they see the .7z file extension and run for the hills. Why not trial both archive formats?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mike Swanson wrote:
7-Zip's RAR (uncompress only) is licensed from WinRAR, so you still have to download the proprietary RAR in these ways:
- The 'unrar' for Linux
- WinRAR
- 7-Zip's RAR implementation is licensed from WinRAR, so they cannot
give out source to RAR. (p7zip, for example, does not have RAR support at all) 4. Any other program with RAR licensed from WinRAR.
Ahh. I wasn't aware of that.
Is that a patent issue?
- -- Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
With the recent discussion about 7-zip I decided to check it out. I took my project's working directory at work, which is 8.3 megs of source and object code, and compressed it. Winzip on max compression got it down to 2.5 megs. WinRar on max compression got it down to 2.1 megs. 7-zip got it down to 517k!
I nearly shat myself.
I don't know how it does it, but this thing is incredible. I think it definitely needs further investigation and possible use.
Phillip Susi wrote:
I don't know how it does it, but this thing is incredible. I think it definitely needs further investigation and possible use.
I don't think it's a good choice for our public downloads, the avarage user most likely will not know this format. zip still is THE standard.
Best Regards, Thomas
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
Phillip Susi wrote:
I don't know how it does it, but this thing is incredible. I think it definitely needs further investigation and possible use.
I don't think it's a good choice for our public downloads, the avarage user most likely will not know this format. zip still is THE standard.
Self-extracting with 7zip?
Or zip-within zip? First with store only, then with compression. It works like tar + zip.
//Jakob
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Self-extracting with 7zip?
not really a good idea when you don't know which operating system the user runs.
Or zip-within zip? First with store only, then with compression. It works like tar + zip.
zip within zip usually doesn't improve compression at all (unless stronger compression methods chosen). Apart from that it just confuses users I think.
Thomas
Self-Extracting 7-Zip should be good... because users won't have to download the 7-Zip File Manager. Only problem is that people get paranoid with .EXE files (weary of a viruses on the Internet).
I think what Jokob meant was to have a ZIP with zero compression (which'll work like Tar) and zip that collection. The ZIP format basically compresses each individual files them binds them together.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
I don't think it's a good choice for our public downloads, the avarage user most likely will not know this format. zip still is THE standard.
True, it is. However, end-users will follow whatever trends are set for them. ZIP got to be big and well-known because of PKZip, honestly.
If 7-Zip is that much better, then I'd say we go for it and put in something like red text above the link to the downloads page that we use 7-Zip.
Or, we could give users their option and offer both. Those concerned about bandwidth would use the 7-Zip version, and those who don't care can go with the other one.
As far as users and .EXE files - End Users download EXE files all of the time. They don't know any better. They see the box in MSIE and go, "Yeah, whatever, it's my computer and I wanna download it," click it away and move on. *shrugs*
That's why I make money outside of my job, cleaning up after people's idiotic mistakes, but that's another story altogether. If we offer them a self-extracting version and a 7-Zip'd version, that'd be even better in terms of download time/bandwidth.
Not to mention, if 7-Zip can be distributed with ReactOS, it's a good way to get it out there. Since it's under LGPL, it'd be something that could even be built into ReactOS in the same way as .ZIP format support is built into more recent versions of Windows (and hopefully, just as easy to disable, because I hate that feature, but plenty of people absolutely love it).
Not only all of that, but since it's a superior compression scheme, it'd be logical to support it and help further it's distribution so that people would use it. People don't just sit down very frequently and go, "Hrm. I think I am going to search out a new way to compress my files," because they figure that compression is compression is compression, and that's all there is to it.
All in all, I think it'd be wise, especially over the long-term, to use and support 7-Zip.
- Mike
- -- Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
I agree with Michael B. 7Zip is superior to ZIP. You have to remember who will be downloading the source, compressed files. Is it going to be standard windows users that use winzip and nothing else? When it comes to mass distribution of images, the iso format seems like a sensible choice, where the setup programs can utilise whatever compression they like. PKZip may be the most popular, but that does not mean that ReactOS files have to use it.
Michael B. Trausch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
I don't think it's a good choice for our public downloads, the avarage user most likely will not know this format. zip still is THE standard.
True, it is. However, end-users will follow whatever trends are set for them. ZIP got to be big and well-known because of PKZip, honestly.
If 7-Zip is that much better, then I'd say we go for it and put in something like red text above the link to the downloads page that we use 7-Zip.
Or, we could give users their option and offer both. Those concerned about bandwidth would use the 7-Zip version, and those who don't care can go with the other one.
As far as users and .EXE files - End Users download EXE files all of the time. They don't know any better. They see the box in MSIE and go, "Yeah, whatever, it's my computer and I wanna download it," click it away and move on. *shrugs*
That's why I make money outside of my job, cleaning up after people's idiotic mistakes, but that's another story altogether. If we offer them a self-extracting version and a 7-Zip'd version, that'd be even better in terms of download time/bandwidth.
Not to mention, if 7-Zip can be distributed with ReactOS, it's a good way to get it out there. Since it's under LGPL, it'd be something that could even be built into ReactOS in the same way as .ZIP format support is built into more recent versions of Windows (and hopefully, just as easy to disable, because I hate that feature, but plenty of people absolutely love it).
Not only all of that, but since it's a superior compression scheme, it'd be logical to support it and help further it's distribution so that people would use it. People don't just sit down very frequently and go, "Hrm. I think I am going to search out a new way to compress my files," because they figure that compression is compression is compression, and that's all there is to it.
All in all, I think it'd be wise, especially over the long-term, to use and support 7-Zip.
- Mike
Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCXcHQPXInbkqM7nwRA4D1AJ93vO8bTantG9QSWgtejVN0CotNiQCfe1rM z6njCB0ucQYWNIAoofS9bD8= =d5Zf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Andrew Flynn wrote:
I agree with Michael B. 7Zip is superior to ZIP. You have to remember who will be downloading the source, compressed files. Is it going to be standard windows users that use winzip and nothing else? When it comes to mass distribution of images, the iso format seems like a sensible choice, where the setup programs can utilise whatever compression they like. PKZip may be the most popular, but that does not mean that ReactOS files have to use it.
Also, it's better to give the users a better, more legal alternative. Most end-users that have WinZip, from my experience in repairing their machines (A) do not run the latest (9.0) WinZip, and (B), use a key that works for most WinZip versions (up to 8.0) to "register" it so that the annoying messages go away about registration. These are people who know very little about computers, and have had someone in their family or a friend set it up for them. I've been moving them anyway to other archivers, and they hardly notice the difference.
After this recent discovery of 7-Zip and what it can do, I will start moving users to *that*. Why? I support Free Software. After ReactOS makes it to a point where it can be used as a end-user drop-in replacement for Windows 2000, Windows XP, or whatever is current at the time, I will start installing that for users, as well, along with a suite of free software, so that I can start giving users software that is 100% legal for their use.
You might (or not) be suprised as to how legal most users are. Most XP users at home nowadays have XP Professional, with a VLK as well.
I even know some users that have a corporate machine and then use that same VLK for their home machines, even though that's not something that they're supposed to be doing.
- Mike
- -- Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
Michael B. Trausch wrote:
After this recent discovery of 7-Zip and what it can do, I will start moving users to *that*.
We did that at work last year with v3.13: it is an excellent product. v4.16b is even better. As we move large files frequently, previously we used tar+bzip2 under various Unix flavors and even under Windows.
Emanuele
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
I don't think it's a good choice for our public downloads, the avarage user most likely will not know this format. zip still is THE standard.
Best Regards, Thomas
What if we did something like cygwin where they just download a small setup program which then will ask them what kinds of packages they want, and download those, in 7zip format, and then decompress and install them?
Self-extracting with 7zip?
not really a good idea when you don't know which operating system the user runs.
Self extracting zips are fine for windows users, that way they don't have to download the program separately. For people on other platforms, they can just download the 7-zip program and use that to extract the SFX. Those who would have to do this ( Linux users ) I think are more than capable of doing so.
I think what Jokob meant was to have a ZIP with zero compression (which'll work like Tar) and zip that collection. The ZIP format basically compresses each individual files them binds them together.
Essentially that's a workaround to get winzip to create a solid archive. That helps some, but not very much, and makes it more annoying to unpack. A self extracting 7-zip archive would be significantly smaller, and easier to unpack than a zip in zip.
Phillip Susi wrote:
With the recent discussion about 7-zip I decided to check it out. I took my project's working directory at work, which is 8.3 megs of source and object code, and compressed it. Winzip on max compression got it down to 2.5 megs. WinRar on max compression got it down to 2.1 megs. 7-zip got it down to 517k!
I nearly shat myself.
I don't know how it does it, but this thing is incredible. I think it definitely needs further investigation and possible use.
Cool, hough?
http://www.7-zip.org/download.html
Very nice, James
I don't think it should be used for internet downloads, but prehaps we should use thier compression algorithm in the ReactOS installer? That would decrease file size by quite a bit and not require some wierd software on the user's machine.
Phillip Susi wrote:
With the recent discussion about 7-zip I decided to check it out. I took my project's working directory at work, which is 8.3 megs of source and object code, and compressed it. Winzip on max compression got it down to 2.5 megs. WinRar on max compression got it down to 2.1 megs. 7-zip got it down to 517k!
I nearly shat myself.
I don't know how it does it, but this thing is incredible. I think it definitely needs further investigation and possible use.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Nate DeSimone wrote:
I don't think it should be used for internet downloads, but prehaps we should use thier compression algorithm in the ReactOS installer? That would decrease file size by quite a bit and not require some wierd software on the user's machine.
If you're going to take the approach of installing things in "packages" that might be worthwhile. I'm not sure what the stats on 7-Zip compression are, but I'm sure just as with anything else, the smaller the set of data, the worse it performs.
Of course, if that's how the installer works, it'll wind up installing in *much* less time then Windows does, even if ReactOS includes more stuff on their disc to put in at initial system install.
- Mike
- -- Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Nate DeSimone wrote:
I don't think it should be used for internet downloads, but prehaps we should use thier compression algorithm in the ReactOS installer? That would decrease file size by quite a bit and not require some wierd software on the user's machine.
Even better, one could even use 7z to compress the files so that they can be placed in volumes and installed from floppy.
While it wouldn't be a popular option, if the files were laid out nicely enough on the installer CD, it'd be something that someone could do. Having been in situations a lot where a floppy install set would be useful, it's an idea.
- Mike
- -- Michael B. Trausch fd0man@gmail.com Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch@jabber.com Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647 =================================================================== Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!
I do always select highest compression. My processor time saves manny others download time.
The thing with zip is that it doesn't support solid archives. You can imagine as doing a tar and then zipping that. What all zip-packers do is they zip every file and then tar tehm together. So in this 'special' case where text (cointiuous text) is compressed, RAR gives much better results. Said that, also 7zip or tar.bz2 should be on the same level as RAR.
Jason Filby wrote:
What about compression options? Have you tried zipping with the highest compression level? Either way I think we should keep zip (for its popularity) but perhaps add rar if it really does offer much better compression.
Cheers Jason
On Apr 3, 2005 7:36 PM, Magnus Olsen magnus@itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
RAR compress alot better that zip in most case.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Having read your comments, I came to this conclusion:
I'll have a try with 7zip and if it compresses slightly less or better than rar, I'll use 7zip (because it is free). For a test period I'll provide both, zip and 7zip/rar and the user may decide which one will win. Additionally I'll provide a file 'how to decompress.txt' in every release. Wheras I think, people who come to download an OS know enough to find one theirselves. Making exe-files is still an option but I don't like it. So you have to convince me.
Robert Köpferl wrote:
Having read your comments, I came to this conclusion:
I'll have a try with 7zip and if it compresses slightly less or better than rar, I'll use 7zip (because it is free). For a test period I'll provide both, zip and 7zip/rar and the user may decide which one will win. Additionally I'll provide a file 'how to decompress.txt' in every release. Wheras I think, people who come to download an OS know enough to find one theirselves. Making exe-files is still an option but I don't like it. So you have to convince me.
An exe file is extractable in Wine too.
regards, Jakob
-
Aleksey Bragin -
Andrew Flynn -
Casper Hornstrup -
ea -
Ge van Geldorp -
Jakob Eriksson -
James Tabor -
Jason Filby -
Jonathan Wilson -
João Jerónimo Barata de Oliveira -
Magnus Olsen -
Martin Fuchs -
Michael B. Trausch -
Mike Swanson -
Nate DeSimone -
Phillip Susi -
Robert Köpferl -
Saveliy Tretiakov -
Thomas Weidenmueller