Here's why I think [tag:run] is not _necessarily_ a bad idea. Since the question didn't specify _why_ [tag:run] is a bad idea, I'm forced to speculate that it's because it's ambiguous. Here are some arguments _for_ the tag:

 1. Many new `linux` users struggle with the execution of binaries. This ranges from the need to `chmod` the files to prefixing `./`. A user who doesn't know how to execute a binary isn't going to know that they should tag the question with, for example, [tag:chmod].
 2. Executing a binary in `windows` is often not trivial. There can be a range of issues from compatability and missing libraries to permissions issues. Users might not always know what is causing the problem so expecting them to correctly tag the question with the specifics of the _solution_ is unrealistic (If a user knew that the problem related to a compatability issue they'd have solved 80% of the problem in many cases).

As to why it _is_ a bad idea; well it is ambiguous and [tag:run] could mean just about anything. In this regard I don't think Gaurav's suggestion of a [tag:binary-execution] tag is a bad one; it removes the ambiguity and lets users still tag the question when the specifics of the root cause are unknown to them.

**Conclusion**: I agree with the OP that the usefulness of [tag:run] is limited. Let's replace it with something useful, like [tag:binary-execution].