[dragonwriter]

> But that's different from saying "something usually only seen in expensive commercial installations".

No, its not. The fact that there are inexpensive alternative means by which it can be deployed, and by which certain segments of the population can and do deploy it, doesn't make it any less true that it is usually only seen in expensive commercial installations.

> And it is still misleading if it tends to mislead one group of people more than another group.

I don't think it tends to mislead any group at all. I think that the group to whom the exceptions to the "usual" case accurately described here is relevant will be well aware of it and so not misled, and the group who is not interested will also not be misled by the accurate statement, even though they are likely to be less aware of the nature of the alternative.

[ebf6]

>> But that's different from saying "something usually only seen in expensive commercial installations".

> No, its not. The fact that there are inexpensive alternative means by which it can be deployed, and by which certain segments of the population can and do deploy it, doesn't make it any less true that it is usually only seen in expensive commercial installations.

Well then they should have made that more clear. Expensive + commercial means, well, expensive, and commercial installation means proprietary and hard to access (which, by the way, is also untrue).

> I don't think it tends to mislead any group at all. I think that the group to whom the exceptions to the "usual" case accurately described here is relevant will be well aware of it and so not misled, and the group who is not interested will also not be misled by the accurate statement, even though they are likely to be less aware of the nature of the alternative.

Sorry, I edited my comment for clarity. Anyway I don't think it's right to just say that because a certain population can't be mislead, it means that the information itself is not misleading.

[dragonwriter]

> Well then they should have made that more clear.

"Usually" generally means that they are exceptions, but they are less common. There's no lack of clarity here, you are just ignoring that word.

[ebf6]

Of course I am ignoring the word "Usually". It's not a substantial word. How much is usually? There are always "uncommon exceptions" to some subject (see the implicit flaw with this sentence? That's because I don't use the word "usually". What kind of an argument can I make without the word "usually"?)

It disregards a whole field of volunteered hard work to make mesh networking technology accessible by people who don't want to buy "expensive, commercial" hardware and software.'

It sends the message: "Don't look further, because it's not worth it -- because usually other solutions are expensive and commercial."

[dragonwriter]

> Of course I am ignoring the word "Usually".

Then you are criticizing something other than their actual description.

[ebf6]

> Then you are criticizing something other than their actual description.

No, I'm criticizing the wording. Perhaps you should ask yourself more questions about the construction of these descriptions and what messages they convey, than merely the definition of the word usually.

[dragonwriter]

> No, I'm criticizing the wording.

Well, except that you are expressly ignoring a key word in doing that.