Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Some people, while having not fully understood the question (or don't really know about the topic) tend to try to close such questions and move them to another site.

One example:

As you can see, no one really gave a comment or started a discussion about whether it fits better on another site.

It feels annoying to put a disclaimer into my question that I want it to stay on Stack Overflow; in this case because I want to have the problem analysed in a code-related way. By asking it on Stack Overflow, I am already implying that I want to get it answered code-related, so why do I need to specially say that?

Another example:

In this case there was a discussion and it showed that people had different opinions on that. The problem was that the people who agreed with me that this is a programming-related question couldn't unvote the close-votes. And probably not all of them had an account on Server Fault or not all of them checked back once it was moved, so it stayed there. (In the end, I got a few answers (which are all programming-related...) so I don't care any more about this question and maybe it really was a corner case, but it demonstrates the problematic.)

share|improve this question

having not fully understand the question

There's 5 votes required (or 1 moderator vote) to close. If 5 people fail to understand, then maybe revise your question, or give it a better title?

noone really gave a comment or started a discussion about whether it fits better on another site

I don't see why should be repeated when migrating a question.

I want it to stay on SO

It's really not your choice. (Or any question asker's choice. The community tries to ensure the rules are followed.)

By asking it on SO, I am already implying that I want to get it answered code-related, so why do I need to specially say that?

That might be true for you, but certainly is not true for many others, especially not for new users. But now that you know things get migrated if the question does not clearly ask for a programming-related answer: why not ensure that the title and question refer to code? Like in the first (migrated) revision (more details) of your first example, I think you're not making clear at all that you're actually coding things:

what possible reasons could block a virtual terminal on Linux?

Or is it possible at all that some process or something else could block a virtual terminal? Or what could be a reason that an application hangs when trying to access the VT1?

It seems, while that is happening, it is hanging in the function xf86OpenConsole.

Also, while it is waiting there, if I do a chvt 1 from another terminal, that also hangs.

share|improve this answer
Yea, maybe I should make that more clear right from the beginning. But in the given VT example question, once I saw the appearing close-votes, I edited my question already to put that note and also put it as a comment which was kind of ignored. – Albert Sep 26 '10 at 11:25
Btw., by discussion, I don't mean repeating the FAQ. It doesn't make sense to just say "this is not programming related" while others might say "this is programming related". The discussion would be about why people might think this/that way. – Albert Sep 26 '10 at 12:59
By looking at the timeline of you first example, I really fail to see why anyone should have considered this was programming related (hence: no reason for discussion, imho), and why in its first form it was not better suited on Super User. True, on Super User you then added some code, after migration, 90 minutes after asking the original question. I really think that's your bad, not a failure of the community. – Arjan Sep 26 '10 at 13:09
@Arjan: The question is about virtual terminals and how (b)locking of them works. Also in the initial question. I used Xorg as an example to demonstrate the problem / my question. It's stupid that I must add some source code and remove the Xorg reference to make it fitting on SO. (And check the timeline; that is the only thing I really changed.) That's also what I mean by "not fully understood". – Albert Sep 26 '10 at 15:22
The question is about virtual terminals and how (b)locking of them works -- which, to me, sounds software related and hence fits perfectly on Super User, if you're not actually programming it yourself. ;-) – Arjan Sep 26 '10 at 16:17
@Arjan: I very much doubt that you can explain/answer all that without details/knowledge about common implementations of it. Also, you would probably never need to be able to answer my question if not in own program code. Or otherwise, why would you want to know the answer at all? What interest could any non-programmer have in this question? – Albert Sep 26 '10 at 16:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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