Exercise 2: A Binary Crashing on Alpine but Not on Debian or Fedora — Possible Solution
====================================================================

THE LIKELY CAUSE
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "every other family in this course - Debian, Ubuntu,
Fedora, RHEL, Arch - uses glibc... Alpine uses musl instead." The
binary was very likely compiled or tested only against glibc, and per
this chapter's own warn-box, "software compiled or tested only against
glibc can behave subtly differently, or fail outright, under musl."
Debian and Fedora both provide glibc, so the binary runs fine there;
Alpine provides musl instead, and if the binary makes assumptions
specific to glibc's own behavior, it can crash immediately rather than
running with subtle differences.

WHY THIS ISN'T ALPINE BEING BROKEN
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "this isn't Alpine being 'broken' - it's a real,
different library implementation." musl is a genuine, standards-
compliant C library in its own right, not a deficient version of
glibc - it simply isn't identical to glibc in every internal detail
that a binary compiled specifically against glibc might implicitly
depend on.

THE TWO REAL OPTIONS, PER THIS CHAPTER
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "the fix is either adjusting the software to be
musl-compatible or choosing a glibc-based minimal image when full
compatibility genuinely can't be sacrificed." The first option means
rebuilding or reconfiguring the software so it works correctly under
musl - genuinely fixing the root incompatibility. The second option
means abandoning Alpine specifically for this use case and using a
different, still-reasonably-small glibc-based base image instead,
accepting a larger image in exchange for guaranteed glibc compatibility.

WHY BOTH OPTIONS ARE LEGITIMATE, NOT JUST ONE
------------------------------
Neither option is universally "more correct" - which one makes sense
depends on whether the smaller image size Alpine offers is worth the
effort of achieving musl compatibility, or whether compatibility
matters enough that the size trade-off should simply be abandoned for
this particular piece of software.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It identifies the glibc-vs-musl mismatch as the likely cause using this
chapter's own warn-box, clarifies why this reflects a genuine library
difference rather than an Alpine defect, and states both real options
this chapter names rather than picking just one as the only answer.