I meant to get back to this sooner, sorry I went MIA there
Most of you have picked out that this thread exists solely because I do not believe this should have been closed:
What makes TCP window size keep changing (e.g.windows)?
This is another one of those cases where we could have picked between giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP and provide a helpful answer, or just be legalistic and dismissive.
The question I wrote above is nothing more than the exact same question the OP asked but omitting referencing a specific operating system. And as expected, the consensus is that the edited question above is on topic.
We really need to move past being a community that won't answer a question unless it is perfectly worded.
We need to move past being a community that will close a question solely because it contains a particular trigger word.
Yes, the OP mentioned Windows. But only as a comparison point to frame their actual question. The question at its core is not "why does Windows do xyz", but "why would an operating system do xyz", it is squarely a protocol theory question.
But fine, I'll admit that it is subjective. In response, however, I want to ask... what would the harm really have been had we given the OP the benefit of the doubt and answered why would an OS do XYZ?
Would that have really been the beginning of the end for the NESE community?
Would it open the flood gates to "why does Windows do xyz" questions?
Could the answer to the root question (why would an OS do XYZ) help other members that might one day search for a question like this? Could an appropriate answer contribute to the catalog of knowledge that Stack Exchange tries to be?
We could have answered, then mentioned in the comments that the specific OS implementation is off-topic. I'm not sure it would have been necessary, but if it satisfies the legalistic among us, then fine. But to outright close it was not the right move. It does not foster or encourage community, it does not foster or encourage the OP coming back to ask a 'on topic' question.