Windows® is definitely not an operating system for the kernel developers but, to my surprise, the ultimate remarkably learning platform so far revolutionized.

And yes, learning Windows® architecture unmistakably brings one a solid foundation of message passing mechanism and how it achieves highly modular and scalable platform is worth to mention. This basis has laid the foundation of so many low-level graphical API (Application Programming Interface) sitting on the top of the native operating system dependent layer.

Who's not afraid of Linux® or any freely available UNIX® these days? And who of them are interested in going through the 20 million lines of code passionately? Not more than a handful of hackers.

And the main reason of their intentions is the word 'FUN'. We want to play a game so hardly when we know the rules of it. And knowing how to 'defy' the rules gives much more pleasure sometimes.

Writing program is a sort of playing game with some rules implicated on it. The more you play the game, the greater the understanding of rules and miserably, the intellect to break the rules.

Some platform like Windows® just lay down the rules but never ask you suggestion to improve or leverage their rules. On the other, Linux® keeps on changing the rules with your suggestion to make the game more interesting or realistic or whatever you can say.

What is this matter to the programmer or developer? Or say, to the common people?

A hacker is someone who wants to exploit all the possible permutation/combination he can do in a computer system. But the entire programmer is not a hacker.

When Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds endorses the Linux operating system, it makes sense to the hacker community but NOT to a programmer community. The reason is - every programmer or aspiring developer is not a kernel hacker.

And yes, Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds or broadly open-source community, has every reason to fool everyone because he's a kernel hacker. He knows the operating system deep down the bits level.

He knows the importance of 'open-minded' culture as far as kernel code is concerned. And he goes the revolution of his 'incomprehensible' philosophy.

Incomprehensibly word is used because his philosophy only matters with the hacker community. I have an important question to be discussed – by prophesying the 'open source'; do we intend to defer the Microsoft Windows perpetually?

Yes, the question is quite contradictory to any of the article I had written so far. And this is going to pose a serious paradoxical threat on the open-source lovers. I get in touch with the Windows® operating system low level API quite often these days.

And much to my shocked and surprise, the system is ironically a good platform for serious programmer. The only pitfall to the programmer is the encapsulation of source code comprising each APIs.

How seriously it matters to a programmer? I'm not considering intentionally the hacker community. The win32 API has everything a programmer can build upon his own native platform to run its own application.

The MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) has given everything bits and bytes to help the programmer. And the Trolltech has built its cross platform widget QT (pronounce as 'cute') toolkit using this paradigm.

And worse, the Cygnus people have emulated/ported xfree86 to enable the GTK(GNOME Tool Kit) widget environment on Windows® platform. My intention of writing this article is to address the phenomena of blaming the Microsoft Windows® environment exclusively and intentionally on the idea of not providing its kernel source code or any low level layer.

How does this matter or relevant to a programmer Not to a hacker? Or to an employee working/getting a license of Microsoft® product. If blaming matters a lot, I don't think the QT developers won't create/help or build its cross-platform QT library.

Yes, the question of 'blaming' does matter to a kernel hacker like Linus Torvalds but it is meaningless to a programmer/developer. So I must say, at this moment, that it's not a good or sensible idea to endorse the 'open source' culture by bringing forth the ONE pitfall of Microsoft.

Endorsing a product by blaming other product is not a WISE policy. Every individual has his or her taste and disposition. I cannot enforce someone to be religious. Nor can I let other to convince me religiously.

The programming world is unmistakably divided into two (or even three, if you distinguish between free-software and open-source) avenues in respect of the availability of source code. I have been always tempted to adore open source or free software world.

The revolution of open source is fairly a major step for building the fraternity of mankind. The close system or the proprietary companies are simply the opposite. And if we could have the chance to explore the close system, why shouldn't we try it at the cost of leveraging the open source environment further?

My answer is simple and straight. In a country like India, where software and Microsoft® product are creepily getting free of cost, why shouldn't we try both the avenues?

Theoretically, the demarcation is there, but practically here, no such religious ideology is followed. Why should we miss the opportunity of learning freely an intuitive idea at the cost of endorsing open source?

Let's be practical. We're born into an era where we don't need to decipher manually ZEROES or ONES or learning MNEMONIC symbols. We're quite LUCKY, in the sense, that we can learn different sort of computer tools and paradigm JUST by knowing ENGLISH language.

In this situation, why should we miss out the opportunity of learning new things of Microsoft® JUST simply at the cost of ENDORSING/POPHESIZING open source?

All I am saying here ONLY strictly applies or intuited in respect of any region where any software is getting FREE of COST and there's NO practical meaning between OPEN system and CLOSE system empirically.

I bet, every personal computer user (in India) is getting and using any damn sort of Windows® product illegally. In this situation, why shouldn't he converts this illegal opportunity into a LEGAL one by learning the CONCEPTS and apply it to an OPEN SOURCE world.

This is exactly what I want to convey through this article. I have been an open source follower since my inception into computer world. Richard Stallman is the greatest philosopher I have ever admired.

Larry Wall (of Perl) is the greatest comical actor in the open source world I ever conceived. Linus Torvalds is the greatest Leader in the open source community.

QT License is the most sensible License I ever found on the open source community. GNOME community is the greatest REDUNDANCY or reinventing-the-wheel people in the open source.

CYGNUS people are the most PREMATURE kind of species on open source world because they always TRY to show the potential of Linux environment to the windows world by inventing SQUARE WHEELS!

ANJUTA is the most potential and promising FOUNDLING ever created by my 'genius' FRIEND. KDE is the promising Desktop Environment for the Linux community.

And last, but not the least, C++ will and always be the FUTURE system programming language that's going to inspire many generations to come.

Have nice critics at your mind!!!

"If not NOW, WHEN??" - Richard Stallman, GNU Founder

N.B: The article is intentionally written for open-source/Linux Lover