News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How fat does a fat binary need to be? (2021). Parent comment

Re:How fat does a fat binary need to be? (2021) by BeefWellington on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @08:07AM (#32649302)
This highlights the ongoing problem of article titles needing to be eye-grabbing but usually inaccurate/misleading or more complex than a simple title allows for.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How fat does a fat binary need to be? (2021) by sph on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @08:28AM (#32649501)
It's a title, it cannot be a paragraph long to be pedantically clear and unambiguous in what to expect.

"Website that lets you download a 1KB long executable that can be run on 7 _kernels_ and x86_64 architectures, but actually it's only been tested on Intel and will probably not work on Android even if technically it's still a Linux kernel, also Linux < 2.6 is unsupported so YMMV"

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How fat does a fat binary need to be? (2021) by BeefWellington on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @09:02AM (#32649860)
My comment (which I could have made more clear) was intended to be responding to the idea of quoting the title and then claiming it's misleading.

I agree fully with what you're saying.

[ Parent | on HN ]