4

I just tried submitting this question:

64-bit Executable Packer

Is there a good, free packer out there for 64-bit executables?

I'm looking for something like UPX, except that UPX doesn't seem to support 64-bit executables...

and got the "it doesn't meet our quality standards" error.

...wtf? Is it really that bad? (Is it bad at all?)

  • Did something just get changed, or was I hallucinating? I just submitted the same thing and it worked... – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:14
  • 3
    This question seems reasonable, to the point, and easy to understand. It also includes some helpful clarification immediately after the question. It certainly meets my quality standards. – Randolf Richardson Jun 6 '11 at 4:57
  • Are there any ... What is a ... How can I use a ... or even Why can't I ask questions about ... would be a real question. – Ivo Flipse Jun 6 '11 at 6:52
  • 4
    @Ivo: Huh? confused – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 6:53
  • Your original 'question' was "64-bit Executable Packer". My point was that phrasing it as a Jeopardy-styled question, it actually makes more sense what the heck you mean. Like Jeff said: 3 words is just too short to be a useful title. – Ivo Flipse Jun 9 '11 at 14:18
  • @Ivo: Eh... I disagree. :\ I think the title was fine and succinct. – Mehrdad Jun 9 '11 at 14:37
  • maybe the person who flagged it doesn't know what a 'packer' is. there are 10,000 different specialty areas in IT/tech and not all involve software development. – conspiritech Mar 26 '12 at 16:52
3

In general, it's too short. Particularly the title, but .. in general.

  • It's kind of hard to add anything else to it, unless I start going into details about what a packer is (in which case, the person reading it probably won't have the answer anyway). But see my comment on my question... apparently it now worked for some reason. Did something change? – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:15
  • @mehr yes, something changed. Compare, and read the words particularly in the above post. – Jeff Atwood Jun 6 '11 at 4:19
  • @Jeff: I do realize you're referring to the ellipses (right? unless I'm missing it), but the thing is, I also tried it without the ellipses before posting here, and it still told me it's not valid... – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:25
  • @mehr I think you're missing something obvious here. Compare the above question content with what actually got posted. – Jeff Atwood Jun 6 '11 at 4:32
  • 1
    @Jeff: The only differences I see are (1) the ellipses, and (2) the title, which was actually a later fix by @Sathya, not what I managed to post... am I missing something? – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:36
  • @mehr ahh, I missed the title edit. Well, ellipses it is then. But your title was ridiculously short. – Jeff Atwood Jun 6 '11 at 4:50
  • @Jeff: Okay... though like I said, it wasn't the ellipses either, because I already tried that before posting this on meta. :\ Is the algorithm nondeterministic? – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:54
2

What were the tags selected? It's not bad, but then again, the question filter is algorithmic, rather than manual filter. Try adding more details about what Executable packer does.

  • I think they were executable, packer, and windows. I do realize it's algorithmic (hence why I marked it as a bug :P); I'll try adding something else, but I really think it might cause more inconvenience for people than realized. – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:13
  • executible, packer.. hmm what about the OS? I know executibles & packing in general refer to Windows but you really should add them. – Sathyajith Bhat Jun 6 '11 at 4:16
  • Yeah I originally had it, I just forgot about the tag here when you asked me. :) – Mehrdad Jun 6 '11 at 4:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .