isn't in the general perception of the mass public, where it remains small in size, without constituting a real alternative.Software production and commercial networks are perfect examples.In the first case OpenSource software (if we exclude the few outstanding exceptions) is enabling because it is free, but not for its characteristics in terms of quality and usefulness. This is particularly clear if we analyze the methodologies used to construct the software itself, and the ones created for the software users, to allow for the effective execution of tasks and for the integration of the single users' activities in wider, general processes, such as the ones required for large-scale projects.In the second case the services produced don't have the size and quality of the larger ones, and the general public happily continues to use mainstream services, cuddled and spoiled by the corporate service providers, who are the only ones able to create evolved and sophisticated services.Coexistence implies integration?Coexistence aims to the definition of spaces for existence that allow for each other's presence in an unique space/system. It aims to the absence-of-loss in identity.Integration aims to the sharing of a space/system and, thus, to the creation of a unique space for existence. It aims to a convergently tolerable4 loss of identity.On one side OpenSource has created a collaborative modality to approach these problems. On the other side it created a mood of scarce care to the definition and application of structured, effective methodologies, determined by the sharing of the decisional spaces. The integration practices performed with such approaches suffer from the same problems: clear and identifiable results, but far from awesome and limited in share, at the price of a tolerable loss in identity.This could already represent an useful feedback to define the necessity for a sharp turn in the techniques used to approach integration issues, for the need to use formal and structured methodologies, for the need to use any useful technology, aiming toward coexistence.Methodologies and technology must be analyzed from points of view that are social/anthropological and process-focused:* socially and anthropologically. This means starting from the complete analysis of the actors, and from the needs of the communities, not from the will/necessity to create integration spaces5.* focusing on the processes. This means to create methodologies. Using the previous considerations as a foundation, creating techniques that are formal, applicable and non-invasive. Formal: scientifically described, to be able to systematically monitor their effectiveness. Applicable: they need to be useful (fulfilling the auto-defined expectations of the communities - their real needs6 - ) and context-effective. Non-invasive: they must support and preserve communities'7 own identity and processes, without enforcing external models.8.The next step is the analysis of integrability: to understand what is actually integrable and what isn't, in society and technology. The process is defined by establishing a feedback network between various types of skills and know-hows (anthropology, sociology, system theory, networks, computing, ecology... as it is explained in the practical example referenced in note 8). It starts from the analysis of reality to build interaction models for communities and resources, using the results of a formal