Unless the title is a joke which it is. The whole point of the article is that linux blowhards try to ignore ChromeOS as Linux.

The Economist print edition, for exxample, routinely uses puns and wordplay in their headlines (though the subtitle is generally more straightforward). But there is a subset of people who firmly believe that headlines should be "just the facts."

Interestingly they are those people that don't read the article. Thus proving the worth of opaque curiosity piquing titles.

Sounds like a boring world to me!

I run ChromeOS, and it is logical in some sense to exclude or at least separate it from Linux classification.

The Linux VM has limited availability. I believe it depends on your processor (I have an i5, some Chromebooks have ARM.) It needs to be enabled as a "developer option" and yes, it is labeled as a developer tool, which means it could break. It will not work if you're logged in with multiple users. (Neither will the Android subsystem.)

ChromeOS will not run graphical Linux applications out of the box. I haven't experimented enough with the VM, but it does not have X11, Gnome, KDE, or Wayland dependencies installed; it is a minimal package list.

The Linux CLI runs in a VM (and a container too, I believe.) So you're running Linux in the sense that WSL runs Linux. ChromeOS Linux has limited access to the rest of the system. You need to configure each shared folder, for example.

That's userland. There aren't any Linux drivers to install, uninstall, or corrupt. You can't look through /proc or do meaningful system monitoring that you would find on Linux. There's no crontab or any scheduled tasks, for that matter.

I'd say it's one notch up from your Android phone in the hierarchy of "what is Linux?"

If the title is confusing, the least someone could do before taking the time to write a comment with a basic question is to read the article. The point of the title is not always "to summarize the article".

And that is one recurring problem I see across HN in recent times, where people merely make comments/claims based on only reading the title and completely disregarding the contents of the article shared.

It might be that the title may be clickbait-y, but that is I guess to be expected in this day. Someone reading has the choice to just not interact if that title is too much bait.

It has nothing to do with "in recent times," people have been doing it here for well over a decade.

At slashdot it was assumed that no one read the article before commenting.

I have been on HN a lot more since ditching Reddit recently and somehow I think it's actually worse than Reddit with commenters not reading the article

At least on Reddit people make jokes. At one point the most-gilded comment ever was a (honestly, pretty funny) one-line joke reply to a paragraph long heartfelt comment about grief and loss.

Here it's a loose game of word association. For example, title says "GNU" in any context so we get 300 comments with unrelated anecdotes about Stallman. The comments section becomes stories about whatever random nonsense is in the top 2-3 comments. When it was being published, n-gate[0] was great at highlighting this.

[0] http://www.n-gate.com/hackernews/

On the other hand, my first thought was, “If the title is that confused, how much worse is the article gonna be?” so I browsed the comments first and discovered that the weird title was purposeful. Which made me more inclined to read the article than I was beforehand.

it took some thinking, but i did manage to figure out that they must be talking about chrome OS even without reading the article, so i approve

The point of a title, just like the point of any other bit of writing or any other bit of creation of any kind, is whatever the author wanted.

The point of most publication titles is more to grab attention than merely a dry summary.

The point of this one was to grab attention by being funny and curious through being seemingly illogical.

The readers are expected to be humans not robots. Humans understand and enjoy this. They even have a term just for it. You may google the term "wordplay" for more information.

> Usually title should be understandable without reading the article.

I agree with you. It's just that this case is unusual.

> The point of the title is to summarize the article.

This title does just that.

At most publications, yes. But this is El Reg. They have their own way of doing things.

In straight reporting, the title, or "headline," is a story summary. But there are many kinds of writing where the title is a teaser, something to get the reader to turn their attention to it. The worst of the them are "clickbait," but this one is something different. It encourages the reader to click, but not by misleading. Instead it teases, begging the reader to look at the article to make sense of it.