0

I asked a question about how to get 24.10 specific easter eggs in Ubuntu 24.04, but it was closed because 24.10 features were not finalized yet.

Now that 24.10 has been released, my question should be on topic now.

Edit: I have edited the question to clearly mention what I am looking for.

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

Even in its original version the question did not seem open-ended to me. Archisman clearly mentioned what he meant by "Easter eggs" in the first revision (emphasis my own):

[...] some Easter Eggs to celebrate the 20-year-anniversary of Ubuntu (including, Warty Brown color, wallpapers, and the old startup sound).

The 8th revision, which is the last in which the text was altered, does not even differ that much from the first. The main change from the first to that revision was the inclusion of the relevant OMG Ubuntu article, which shows where the term "Easter eggs" came from: Ubuntu 24.10 Includes 20th Anniversary Easter Eggs

In my opinion, the first revision was also clear enough, perhaps because I had also read that article before. However, even if someone was not familiar with it and Archisman's question seemed unclear, shouldn't they first just do a simple search like "ubuntu 24.10 easter eggs", which returns the OMG Ubuntu article as its first result, before deciding to close the question?

And regarding the open-endness of the question, it's perfectly close-ended, as it asked very specific questions:

How to install/load these easter eggs in Ubuntu 24.04?

Is there a package I can install from the 24.10 repositories? Is there a shell script to load these?

What I want to say is that we shouldn't be so ready to close a question, especially from a well-known and active contributor that would most likely respond to a request for more details. And also we shouldn't just close questions about topics that we don't know about without even a bit of research first (I know it can happen, I'm saying that as a reminder to myself as well).

15
  • 1
    I don't have a strong opinion on this, but addressing just what happened: I think the argument was pivoting aroung the term "some" in the first revision. The "including" in that context could have been implying that there are more - which weren't listed in the question nor in the article, and that weren't proven existing - hence the open-endness argument. Revision 8 kinda fixed that as it replaced "some" with actual, tangible "easter eggs" (although the "including" is still there, but I would write that off as an incomplete edit, as "including" there doesn't logically make sense anymore)
    – kos
    Commented Oct 11 at 16:37
  • 1
    I see your point, and I admit that I didn't receive "include" this way, partially because I already knew what the "Easter eggs" were, and partially because even if I didn't know about them, "include" in this context implied a specific finite set. I don't think that the OP had to explicitly mention all of the "Easter eggs". Even if someone wanted the OP to be more specific, this could be done more easily by asking them than by closing the question in this case.
    – BeastOfCaerbannog
    Commented Oct 11 at 18:08
  • I don't have an opinion on how it should've been handled either. Personally I didn't vote to close, as I hoped OP would fix it. But I also get that since many time OP doesn't fix the question, it sometimes makes sense to cast a vote and eventually reopen in case they do. I usually lean towards approaching like you suggest though, and ask first / vote after. Maybe it's us being too nice, I don't know :)
    – kos
    Commented Oct 11 at 18:58
  • Well, there are questions that are clearly unclear or off-topic and I don't mind casting a close vote and keep it until the OP fixes the question. However, here Archisman is a known active user that had also already responded to another comment (see history), so he was evidently active. So he would surely respond to a request for more details.
    – BeastOfCaerbannog
    Commented Oct 11 at 19:21
  • I agree, I too would've thought OP would fix it. But hey, I think that having a mixture of strict and lenient voters is a good thing - it kinda balances things out, preventing both immediate closures and no closures at all. Keeping the world in balance if you will
    – kos
    Commented Oct 11 at 22:04
  • "so he was evidently active. So he would surely respond to a request for more details" it took a repeated request and multiple days before he actually added the source article in response to request, so being active clearly didn't mean squat here.
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 6:30
  • So this "something that could have been "resolved in a couple of comments" didn't actually get resolved until multiple comments and days later, which is why such questions should be closed - clearly without that "hassle" OP wasn't going to do anything.
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 6:31
  • "shouldn't they first just do a simple search like..." Nonsense, it's the question asker's responsibility to make the question as clear as they can, and especially given that OP is a "a well-known and active contributor" - they should be setting an example to new users by making posts as clear as they can in the first place. Their post as originally asked is definitely not something I would use as an example for anyone.
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 6:34
  • @muru Regarding if the OP was active or not, you're overlooking the fact that the first comment (again, judging from the history) to the OP was that the question was off-topic because 24.10 was not yet released, to which the OP responded quite fast. After the subsequent closure, the OP waited until October 10, so that 24.10 would have been released, to update the post and request reopening. So it's not true that he was not active and wasn't responding to requests.
    – BeastOfCaerbannog
    Commented Oct 15 at 6:53
  • Additionally, the closing reason, as again seen in history, was "Not suitable for this site" (I guess for being about a development version (?), I don't really remember), which was the wrong closing reason for your and Thomas' claims about it being an open-ended question. In that case "Needs more focus" should have been used. If indeed the closing reason was about the question being about a development version, then it signaled the wrong thing to the OP and he rightfully waited for 24.10 to become on-topic to request reopening.
    – BeastOfCaerbannog
    Commented Oct 15 at 7:00
  • @BeastOfCaerbannog he definitely didn't respond to mine (until I asked for it again), which was for the source for the claim, so it's also not true that he was responding to requests.
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 7:00
  • And a small note: the closure from a mod also invalidated two "Leave open" votes: askubuntu.com/review/close/1369642
    – BeastOfCaerbannog
    Commented Oct 15 at 7:02
  • Yes, I voted to close for the development release reason, because my request for a source for the claim about a change included in a development release went unanswered, and as I explained in that request, no changes are final till the release, so thank goodness a mod had the sense to close it until it became on topic
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 7:02
  • When a post can be closed for multiple reasons, and it has been closed, I have no problems with dealing with those reasons one-by-one until they are all resolved before the question is reopened.
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 7:04
  • So a post lacking focus about an off-topic release should be closed until both: the release is on topic and it has been improved to be more focused. There's nothing wrong with that
    – muru
    Commented Oct 15 at 7:05
0

As I have said in comments on that post: There is no official list of Easter eggs, so this question is open-ended. If you want to install specific things from 24.10 in 24.04, then ask specific questions about that, instead of asking how to install multiple items of an undefined category in one post.

So your post might not be off-topic due to the release, but it is still off-topic due to lacking focus and clarity.

0

Open ended questions with no firm answer will never have a singular acceptable answer.

Such open ended questions are offtopic, not due to the version of Ubuntu in question, but because they're open ended, opinion-based, and not able to actually have a final singular answer, and this will then have the risk of exploding into numerous other questions, etc. that can't be answered in a single answer or solution.

Per the Help Center, these kinds of open ended no-firm-concrete-answer questions are not permitted on Ask Ubuntu, and even if your post was reopened now it'd be closed as being too broad or opinion-based.

Therefore, since the question is already closed, it's unlikely to get reopened.

You must log in to answer this question.

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