1

I asked a question earlier today (Why isn't there a 64-bit binary for Skype?) and immediately received a number of downvotes (with only 9 views the question had 3 downvotes).

I've since edited the question in recognition of the fact that answerers likely can't speak for Microsoft's motivations.

Is the question as currently formulated

a) answerable and

b) reasonable?

If not, how might it be improved?

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I don't think this question can be improved into being a good fit for Stack Exchange sites in general. It is, of course, both reasonable and answerable, but that is not enough. All you ask is a reason, and someone has provided a reason. You still haven't accepted it. This indicates to me that what you want is to speculate on possible reasons (of which there can be many) - a very broad question.

Secondly, I don't see how this is an Ubuntu problem. MS doesn't provide 64-bit binaries for any Linux distribution, therefore the problem, if it exists, is squarely on the Microsoft side.

Thirdly, any possible reason there can be, boils down to an opinion. It can be one person's opinion that some factor is good enough to be a reason and it can be another's that it isn't. You're asking for an opinion poll.

This question is off-topic thrice over for me.

2
  • Thanks for the response, muru. I'm not (intentionally) asking for speculation - I'm asking in the hope that this has been discussed previously and answered authoritatively (say, on either a dev mailing list or via official Canonical channels).
    – user51157
    Commented Apr 21, 2015 at 21:24
  • @chucksmash Then you should state it in the question, that an authoritative reference is needed. I have asked a few speculative questions myself (always with regard to free software, for which a lot of things happen in the open), and that's what I stress - references (usually via bounty notices, but still).
    – muru
    Commented Apr 21, 2015 at 21:28

You must log in to answer this question.