The following is a composition of various things I've communicated elsewhere. There are some weaknesses with GNU, Free Software for which I believe that right program can help to overcome. Right now Decussion is directed to the usenet newsgroup gnu.misc.discuss under a thread titled "GNU Recognition and Rewards program discussion"

What's the goal?

The goal is to develop and impliment a rewards and recognition program that appriciates the people who do things to move GNU Free Software forward in development and use, while strengthening what is weaknesses of GNU, Free Software and to encourage people to do more, by anyone in the spectrum of development, sales, training, support and use. From paying them full time to do these things, to supplimenting their income for lessor efforts to even just helping to cause a cash flow that is needed to accomplish these improvements.

The sale of GPL, Free Software is not a certainty, it's available for free, but rather something to consider more along the lines of bonus, if and when it happens. But what is a more certain generation of income is that of training and support. And these also require better documentation.

So what does it take, how many stages are there to taking someone with no knowledge of computers and training them to all the way thru to a level of creating software themselves?

There are any number of things to do in creating GPL, Free Software, from design, creation, documentation, debugging, etc. but that's just on the general development side. The other side is of educating users to be skilled enough to not only build a system and install GNU custom to fit the hardware but as well correctly training them to teach others to do the same. Then there is the feedback loop from these users to the developer mode where there should be incentive to not only provide higher quality feedback but reason to impliment any and all reasonable suggestion that help to make things easier for all involved.

So there really is a pretty wide range of development, training and support issues to put into action that will generate an overall higher level of intelligence, use and improvements of computers.

Its important that those who want to, can learn to use automation tools so to make custom software for their own use, be it personal or for a company, industry and field for which they work in.

Just how FREE do you think software can be made to be?

I know that it can be made free in an undeniable inherent manner. Thru the use of autocoding tools (what in general terms is "automation tools") and autocoding engineered vocabulary base/database/dictionary/ or whatever you want to call it. Such that the end users with limited time resources to not study and understand the depth and width idiosyncratic specifics of some specific programming language, can use the autocoding tools and environment to get the computer to create the program he requests of the system to produce or otherwise uses very ease to use tools to produce it.

I know that the proprietary software industry is self admitted greedy and dishonest (available in public documents), and that was even before the MS anti-trust case. Alot of people know this, and I do believe RMS was somehow inspired by such greed applied against his work...

Add the two paragraphs above together and what can you expect to happen?

If you are smart enough, you won't have to ask the question: What is MicroSoft up to? You'll know the answer, as I most certainly do. I have no intention of living in one of their power plant pods, metaphorically speaking. If you need verification, take another look at the .net EULA. The part that says "NO GPL ALLOWED" and also realize their plans are more complex than that. MS intends on cornering the market of autocoding, so you have to pay rent, for your pod and anything you make thru it. ".net" is just a step in that direction. At the heart of .net is the collected sum of programming concepts and datatype in a common language infrastructure. (Yes, I've heard of mono, dotgnu, etc. but this is a bigger issue where freesoftware clones and such are only going to help standardize this base.)

Some Autocoding reference material.

What is needed is the generation of the spirit of good will (bypassing DMR and such theift calling spirit of constraints and divide and conqure methodologies- "Piracy" a word coined by Bill Gates). But the Spirit generation of Good Will is an inherent part of the solution and is always stronger and faster than a bad willed spirit of claiming piracy and the need to protect against it. Protection that uses overhead that consumes resources. What is needed is a program of recognition and reward that generates incentive to work together.

Where genuine science of software engineering is the central focus of a non-profit (but still paid contributors) non-political (if software is "Law" as Lawrence Lessig states then who needs politics, but rather simply have caretakers that follow well defined and agreed upon procedures in maintaining the "Law of Software", so it continues to run as intended) ..... freesoftware network of genuine software engineered resources for use in software development at a level that even end users can grasp, so that these end users of various and even specialized fields can apply their knowledge to produce what they need, for themselves.

Software development freedom should not stop with the general label of "software developer" but rather extend to all you want to do things for themselves via computers. The thing to understand is the importance of making development easy enough that allows the typical end user to do some degree of development for themselves. This has multi-faceted importance and is integrated into, and key to, making the business plan/model work and work real well.

The Free Software GPL methodology of Free Software foundation enable many to contribute in many ways. What's one mans boring job, is anothers "by the way" result or something more enjoyable. And any number of variations on the treasure and trash theme. The GPL method allows people to find for themselves, where they fit best in helping and the easier development is the more who will participate in development. And again this extends beyond software developement.

Like it or not but software is an assist to produstivity, not the cause of it (except for maybe those who think software is all there is in this world, but unfortunately for them, it is not). You know what else is used as an assist in business? Transportation! But you don't see the transportation industry as all there is and controlling everything it only helps things to move.

Now for the part you are interested in, money. How does one come to be working fulltime, earning a living and generate worthwhile and very comfortable retirement income in such a rewards and recognition program?

It's about people, believing in them, helping them and realizing they can help themselves and others to earn income in doing the things that help to spread GPL software usage and it's proper use and better focused development direction and integration into all the industries and fields such people work in.

It needs to be at least a monthly generation of cash flow, but not a cash flow that only goes one way, but one that gets returned to those doing the things that helps move forward, GPL improved usage and developement, and regardless of whether it's developers or users doing such. You do things that actually improve expansion of GPL software development and wider and better usage then you get a return. Where does the money come from? Everyone actively and willingly participating and not a large monthly amount.

Now here is where if you jump to a conclusion, you will probably miss the point. So up front, a custom model does not exist and what you are about to read is only real life examples regarding products and services of a different nature than what Software and training are. As such what you are about to read is to be taken as real life business models to look at and consider in the development of a GPL custom glove model. And you also need to know that generally speaking, it's more an evolution of one business model than it is of different static models.

I cannot go into specific of how a custom model would actually work for it's clear that there is a need for some research, a collection of information, etc. in order to determine the custom details in an honest and fair to all, manner, regardless of where they live worldwide.

Perhaps the following link and what it suggest will help achieve such information and details. A link to "Coase's Penquin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm" in which the Author Yochia Benkler, give's real life examples of the production of quality "Information" by the "lessor" masses.

Again, business models to look into and consider for the development of a GPL software based business.

Everyone has probably heard of Amway, Multi-Level Marketing and maybe, just maybe, you have heard of what has evolved from this in the form of Consumer direct marketing. Amway was challenged by the government and won, and then a Company named Melaleuca went on to develop Consumer Direct Marketing and gained quite a few honors, including Inc. 500 fastest growing companies 5 years in a row until the sixth year where they outgrew the list qualification. Blue Chip award and Entrepreneur of the year award, Inc. 500 Hall of Fame 2001, etc.. It may also be worth noting that the president/CEO used to work in the computer industry. See: Melaleuca and follow the guest link to the "About US" and read on.

What is interesting, is how the structure is fitting of the GNU/GPL is creating a distributed authority of independant associations that have reason to work together and help each other to produce not only the best of a product in software but training and support as well. And the democratic process of voting on directions in product developments can be incorporated rather easy so that the products really are for the people and by the people. Consider mixing a single developer bid process with where developers interested can post their availability and projects interested in helping, along with income/time period bid. Having a go between like this can allow doing as much as can be matched up to do.

I really do believe in rewarding people for the good and productive things they do, and to do so without bias of being from a consumer or a producer position, for we all are part of the same dual roal cycle of economy.

To Establish independant business oriented benefits:

I suggesting a "research project". To collect general information in regards to starting up a business (for above mentioned reasons) from around the world, given the many differing laws to be found in the different countries of which we are fully aware there exist GNU developers..

This would be information in regards to individuals creating their own protection, and would be consistant with distributed authority. The collection process or stage is on the place to start. Of course it would not be "legal advice" as laws change enough that country and local laws might be to much for any one resource (such as this project) to keep up. But we need to get a bigger overall world scale picture of the subject matter. Sorta like before you can even see "c" you need to move from "a" to "b". One step at a time.

The idea of putting liability on FSF for any wrong doings by a participants is absurd. It'd be like putting a bulls eye on FSF and giving MS a cannon and a 2 inch distance away from the bullseye that they couldn't possibly miss even if they tried, in taking down FSF/GPL.

Participants need to be responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to work at better understanding what those responsibilities are, and from around the world, big picture.

But as a matter of having an unbiased caretaker of operations, yet clearly supportive of overall GPL goals, I see nothing wrong in hiring FSF to do the job of operations.

Given the following two articles, it seems to me what is missing on the GNU side is common "reason" to do a team focused business direction, that includes all who use and develope for....

The Age of Aggressive Linux Advocacy Is Upon Us?

Ballmer Admits 'Linux Changed Our Game'

Hi, I'm Joe Consumer and I understand I can get the GNU software for free, either directly or indirectly. But I also understand that such things like documentation, training and support are not so easily available and in some cases not available at all. I also understand about money issues and how with money going in the right direction, such short commings can be improved, not to mention faster development improvements in the software.

I'm looking at the GNU software for a number of different uses. From my own home personal use to a small business I run on the side. But I also work for a rather large company and have influence in their computer department as well as the some influence at the reception desk (if you know what I mean.)

As I understand it, so long as I can figure out this GNU software myself, perhaps with what documentation I can find freely and at the book store, and help I might find online in some irc channel or mailing list, I really don't have any need to become involved in any sort of business Alliance or collective. Besides that sort of thing just may be problematic considering my side business and the company I work for, which I'll not go into here because it's really none of your damn business.

But here is what I am willing to do in order to improve not only my ability to more easily learn how to use the software, but my ability to help teach others how to do the same, such as my next door neighbor, or an assistant I might hire to help me in my side business, or fellow workers both above, next to and below me at the company I work for. Because when it gets right down to it, there is no association or alliance or collective that is going to do this for me, for my neighbor, my potential assistant or co-workers. For these people are the ones that need to learn how to do this and to do so for themselves.

Ok so pretty much what is needed is a training network of people helping people to learn, do and repeat as this process helps expand the educated user base of home users, small business users and large corporate use via the individual people do the work.

But I'm also a business person that understands that I should be will to pay perhaps a monthly fee or charge in support of such a network of education recursion. Of course Documentation comes into the picture but perhaps in the form of simple one step at a time lessons. And there would be other material such as CDs containing GNU software latest versions (I don't want to download a CDs size worth of software and my neighbor only has dialup (refuses to get anything better cause they say dialup is the best protected from monopoly by law), updates, lesson examples, etc... all of which cost money to produce. And I do undertand that the more people there are participating in such a program the lower the cost of producing such material will be. And I'd think, and want, the savings to go on to improving the software....

OK, so I'm willing to ......subscribe......???? Hmmmm, wait a minute, as a business person who values his time I'm willing to pay to be taught, but what of my neighbor? Since I live next door it'd be easier for me to teach him and in a one on one manner. Being close by, it's easy for me to go over and help him with any problem he has with his system. But then there is work, my side business, where training someone else who may only be around for a short time..... Or at the company I work for, they are not going to pay me extra to teach these people after hours, an dthey have plenty to do while they are at work.

Soooo, as a business person, I should get something back for training them. If I'm paying so much a month for training and material I receive each month, then so should they, but since I'm the teacher, I should perhaps get some part of what they pay. But the math, what I'm willing to pay each month and the small part of what I'd get from them of what they's just not enough and I don't think I could handle enough people to make it worth my while to do this....

Hmmmm, nobody ever stop learning in using computers. I know this because of how long I've been using computers and the fact that the computer industry keeps changing..... But for all I know today, I cannot teach that much in a short time. But that shoud be OK, as most of the people I might teach only need just so much, but other who I teach who go on to teach others may end up needing help a bit here and there, in their teaching others. Hmmmmm, so maybe I can earn a little more in helping them teach others...... And if I don't know the answer, then I can go to my teacher of who taught them or someone involved in this program, who does know the answer... does it flow, up.... and then back down, but directly up to the center of operations and then directly back to the individuals who have earn the recognition and rewards, while some is diverted to reimberse/make material like documentation, training material, software on CD, etc.. and still some gets diverted to efforts to improve the software (making training easier). And where better to find out how to improve the software than those who are learning how to use it.

So I pay a monthly price for some level or training and support and material including CD based software.... and I can earn money by helping the market to expand by becomming a teacher and support for those I help to get involved in the process or even just as a simple home based user not interested in teaching but only using the software themselves and perhaps making some GPL software themselves (probably what my neighbor would do) and adding it to the freesoftware base all this is built upon. Not to mention all the other things that can be done to help all involved...improve the product and service.

100,000 customers paying $29.00 US a month = 2,900,000.00 per month generated.

2,000,000 goes back to those working the traning program, in the form of income, bonuses and awards. 200,000 goes into operations and the remaining 700,000 goes to development improvements in software and documentation ONCE A MONTH.

Many of the people getting a return in the training program may be getting less back than they have spent, more like a rebate in exchange for the time they have spent expanding the market and therefore increasing the monthly finances available to pay programmers for doing GPL work. Some have developed their training skill enough that they have an impact where ever they train, including large audiences of students, and deserve the rewards of causing such a expansion of user base and participants in the program. Which inturn increases the budget for R&D - reading (documentation) and Developement (software)

If you really understand the business model I'm talking about, you'll understand why the real life example I gave, made the inc 500 list five years in a row, not to mention many other awards of recognition that example has received. Further more you might even realize that although the consumable products of that business example is different than that of software and it's changing nature, the same element of training and sales of the training program exists.

The easier training is, the more it will sell, because it will be easier to sell. And who better to determine how to make it easier, then those participating in the sales of training and actual training, or bottom line, ease of using the software?

Producing crippleware is contridictary to increasing sales and generating cash flow cycle growth. Crippleware creates false constraints, inherently, and usually indicates an act and practice of milking the client/consumer.

What you have now in the software industry is a practice of crippleware, just with different labels like "upgrade" after upgrade after upgrade....gotta generate the ability of selling the same stuff over and over again and that is achieved by never producing the ultimate application and certainly not producing the tools to enable the users to do things for themselves (which are what the ultimate applications are, genuine software engineering genius that enable the users to take advantage of what has been established "the way to do something" but in an automated manner, for themselves when and where they need and see fit to do).

In order to cause the economic ripple effect, that has yet to happen, in software usage, the production of software has to move into very wide spread distributed authority. The way this is going to be done is to remove the psuedo programmers (forever re-inventors) and enable the end user to do, to create software, well within their available resources, when and where they need it in their productivity and efforts to improve their productivity, which increases their value to themselves and any company they work for.

If you want to argue, we can do that, and so long as that is what we are doing, we certainly won't be doing anything else. And that would make for what I call, a self supported dependancy. The only way the field of psuedo software engineering (re-invention programming) can continue to exist, is to deny the users of the power to do it for themselves.

And yes the goal is very much a target of saturation, the removal of the psuedo software engineering field, for only when there is saturation are you able to go to a new level of technology and usage. Just as the saturation of transportion beyond horse power has brought about many things we'd not have otherwise, like fresh saltwater fish to eat in the most distant of such waters, locations. Or the use of the hindu-arabic decimal system beyond specialist field of using it before it became common practice of everyone using it (a period of three hundred years of evolution from specialist to common use of the decimal system)

Some additional comments:

As a non-profit organization the Free Software Foundation has proven itself to be one of pursuing success in the spread of FreeSoftware and as such it's the only organization I trust to handle operations of the business plan I'm on about. To be clear, operations is the collection and redistribution of monies and perhaps some of the logistics of integration of the other departments or divisions .... what ever you want o call them (but for now, so to draw out the big picture a bit clearer...)

Just as obvious as what the position of FSF in this should be, so should it be obvious that debian (sp?) is the development side, as slow and sure the turtle won the race against the rabbit... here it will because slow in development and sure in output will result in more consistant, non-frustrating and non-contridictary, but well integrated base of software to create documentation and training material and improve training up-on.

Now here is what may be the difficult part, the sales and training divisions. If you cannot learn from your mistakes and correct the errors before continuing, then learning will be limited to the constraints the errors continued, will cause. If you can't learn, then you can't teach!

But there are a few things people need to understand. First is that the idea of stocks is not in the picture. There should be plenty enough information right now as to why the concept of stock is to abstract and as such to manipulatable. Enron, Worldcom, Trillion dollar bet, etc. No stocks, Invest in people, not paper!

;.....People are going to have to learn this business is not dog eat dog, but rather people helping people to learn and to train, for the benefit of the individual as well as the whole and that's a whole that most certainly and undeniably includes the end user as in joe consumer. Understand the Nobel Prize Winner John Nash, yes even crazy people can do wonderful things, "stupid user" is no longer in the vocabulary.

Expansion ... people know people who know people who know people, etc.. And some people may only want to learn, not least until they learn enough and maybe someone comes along bugging them for information...all the time..which they can then give away for free (and some may want to do that, especially in contries where the money just isn't there to start out....

Just like deciding whether or not you as a programmer want to do GPL..

But it should be understood that by being a paying customer, you help others and the whole to improve how well they help you.

Perhaps on initial sale, a 70% bonus but the monthly ....sub... people need to find out what the plan is of the company I mentioned as an example is. But they need to be honest about it, up front, to those who may show them the plan. They need to let these people who will show them the plan, know they are wanting to see the plan with the objective of developing a custom to GNU FreeSoftware training plan. But they need to also insist on seeing the whole plan, with a please. Some of these people may do a better job then others and there are group get togthers to show people the plan, but it's all training too. It's a hard job, but one you see the plan you may begin to understand how it can pay off and why initial returns may appear small, but the potential is of high income.

But the point is, the more people who take a look at such a plan that has an established reputation as I've mentioned and linked pointed to.... the more that can came back here and contribute to drawing out the details of the initial custom implimentation of such a GNU training plan to generate cash flow. Knowing that the plan must stay open to modifications in order to improve it as well as enabling the ability to refocus details so to direct motivation and effort in the direction of strengthening weaknesses as the list of weaknesses can and should change.

Not everyone is going to want to participate in the focused sales, but some not wanting to do that might enjoy training, development, learning how to better use GNU for themselves, etc. People will find their place, who want to be involved.

To better understand the inherent nature of such a GNU recognition and rewards - software sales, training and support network business. Those involved are involved because they believe in it and are supportive of freesoftware development. Being in a network and looking for other software development work with a company of such Freesoftware nature is a rather inherent and highly probable side effect benefit.

But even a company open to developing freesoftware can keep it within the company as company specific software development would be. Software is not to be used to pry into business and make public information about the internal operations of any company, and I'd imagine that it'd be part of the contract, even though the software is freesoftware within the company. This is not saying that a company can't hire freesoftware developers to do software that is then released to the public.

To develope freesoftware available for everyone and to be paid for it, it is possible to be a part of the orgainzation, on the development side. And that may bring up the question of how to determine who's going to get paid for what and how much.

It seems to me that there is already a great deal of freesoftware that has proven to be highly used and therefore proven it's value. So in the cash flow cycle where some is taken and redirected towards developemnt, payoffs or awards (perhaps of appriciation) should be awarded to those works that have already proven themselves. Giving freesoftware developers a little more incentive to do a better job while also such a retro active recognition direction would also help to determine how the cash flow should move to and thur the developers side of the organization. You don't get paid for a sale until it closed, you don't get paid for software until it's established it proven value.... keeps things in the right spirit under which much freesoftware has been develope. We do not want to pollute that spirit, which has developed so much of what we have. But we do want to show appriciation in the form or recognition and rewards.

This does not mean there can't be projects that have been determined to be needed and therefor paid to produce as freesoftware. Or even the purchasing of software in order to make it freesoftware, that otherwise is not.

And then there is the ideas Pubsoft is applying, and I expanded upon such that there may be some sort of match up program, as a PART of other possibilities of directing funds to development.

On the structural side of the training organization/division, what politics there is, is determined by those who prove themselves in being successful in building their networks. Given positions of influence based on their success, which inherently, if you really understand the business model, is very democratic, for to develope a large network involved getting people involved that believe in you or those you believe in (did I forget to say "inherently"?).

.... Considering all that is pre-existing, FSF, debian, etc. this business model can snap together very quickly. But getting it to move forward in's important to get the plan down, and the initial general training program. There is also field or application specific training that can be considered a separate product to develope of what the subscriber/associate may want to focus on and change as they learn all they need on that application use topic. There is not just one thing to learn, but enough that warrants ongoing monthly subscription, if not one time additional costs for a particular line of support. These are things that will evolve and be addressed as they do. But one step at a time, general training, installing and generally using GNU software, which may or may not include hardware issues (insuring hardware compatability.......)

Besides there is the process of developing something from a general conception to filling in the details. And that is the natural way of creation.

If anyone really is interested in this business model, you can call up the company I gave as an example and tell them where you live and ask where you might be able to see the plan. Of course they are not in every country yet, so maybe some won't be able to. But I do think it would be helpful to have at least a few people bouncing their perceptions of such a plan around in here so to better understand the unique to GNU issues and how these issues can be addressed to make a custom plan for GNU.

An Important point is, it's NOT "my" plan. If anything, it is "a" plan, "The" Plan and perhaps even "our" (as in all of GNU) plan. But for certainty, it is no more "My" plan than GNU Freesoftware is owned by any one person.

But what is, IS that there are problems to solve. Namely how to better compete with proprietary and companies like MS. And what that means is to recognize the weaknesses of Freesoftware and figure out how to strengthen these weaknesses.

It's pretty well understood that weaknesses are in the areas of Documentation, training in use of software and figuring out how to pay programmers for developing freesoftware. While in doing all this, spreading the use and awareness of freesoftware with te ultimate goal of removing proprietary software from existance (given that small exceptions are needed to prove the rule, so it's never to be 110%)

Other things that are not owned by one person in the freesoftware industry are organizations like debain, and I believe FSF is perhaps another example. But they are organizations designed to serve the whole, for the benefit of the whole and as such this includes the individuals participating.

What is the available roles right now? Some people are good at producing software, perhaps even a specific type of software, others may be good at debugging or beta testing, while still others are good at writing documentation, doing web pages, running a freesoftware organization, etc.. Seems to me there be plenty for everyone to find their place of participation, but there is alot yet to be applied in the way of talent and resources in the way of users talents, sales, training, etc.. So I guess you could say those are more weaknesses needing to strengthen. Right now, it's a matter of developing the plan. See and understand the successful model to work from in doing this.

It's not a matter saying no, it's a matter of figuring out how to make it happen, create an offer they cannot refuse, unless of course they are willing to publicly admit a contridiction to their goals. ;)

Seems to me the FSF has their well established goals and to accomplish these goals they ask for financial support and even have a product line that is priced along the model of proprietary software.

Now what if we can help sell alot more of those products, but at a lower price (sum total being a greater return) while also providing a training and support network probably better than what they have now? They'd be better able to focus their effort in other ways, as they see fit. In any event there is a need for an organization established in trust, to oversee, manage, operate the mechanics of financial flow.

As a non-profit organization, the FSF has other projects they need funding for, so perhaps beyond (in the example I gave for monthly operations budget - $200,000) that the business training organization donateds as perhaps a tax writeoff, additional funds.

(With 300,000 Freesoftware developer worldwide, even if half of those subscribe at $29 a month, that's be an additional 100,000 a month....and like I said, there has got to be far more users interested and willing to participate then there are developers [some may actually be interested in dual roles here, perhaps in effort to figure out best documentation for their programs...])

The creation of training material:

* Training material should be inline with GPL licensings (What's the GPL license for Documentation?)

* Remove the imaginary wall between the developer and end users. Remove the demand for payment. You don't have to give personal support and one on one (or more) training. And it's the personal help and feedback that is of saleable value. And it's also something of choice by the "teacher" which can help in cases where someone whats to learn but the money is just not there to pay for it. Material in hard format, like printed versions of documentation are of course items with saleable value, as unlike soft versions (electronic based), are far more costly to reproduce.

There is no assurance that the "trainer" is any good. And though some are good at teaching themselves, some find it works best if they can first do what they can to teach themselves and then get personal feedback training, and this works optimised for them. Others need more personal feedback. But in any event, everyone learns at a different rate and method. And the same goes for dates, they should be open so to fit the schedual of the .......student...

To develop a network of participants you have option which help to improve the overall success rate. If one trainer position (an individual) doesn't work well with a learner position (another individual or more), or scheduals don't work, etc. there are other options in a growing network.

* The training material project focus is open to first determine what is the common format. Note, there are several education based projects already under way in the GNU scope. Different project may require different approaches but there is a need to establish a common and easy to understand description format. Ask for input from GNU projects all around in general on this. Get them thinking!!! Plant some seeds of thought.

Things are going to change as general automation tools do, come about.

* Get GNU'Ed in any event.

* The project really should include why it's important to develop such programs. And that its important such programs be done in a manner of helping others learn how to teach others, besides just learning the lessons. Expanding the trainer base and as such, availability of the programs. Ultimately training is going to merge more and more in methods and tools as general automation tools, including autocoding, come about.

+ there is a bigger picture where one shot training is to limited in what is an ongoing learning process of using computers, regardless of what level you are at. From newbie user to 20 year vetran. It's possible to have a 30 year vetran training others while learn from a 1st year trainer, in something that is new to them.


A link to "Coase's Penquin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm" in which the Author Yochia Benkler, give's real life examples of the production of quality "Information" by the "lessor" masses.