I'd like to discuss whether or not there is a difference between querying historic design decisions and asking for opinions. The difference is subtle enough... "why should I ..." can often be opinion based. "Why did ... happen" is often a matter of documented fact(?)
My own feeling on the matter is that historic decision logic was, at the time, a matter of opinion of authors and software venders. Yet this decision logic is often well documented, particularly where a significant change occurs after first release.
So "why did ... change to ..." is commonly going to be documented somewhere such as the software's issues database or release notes. This makes the final decision a matter of historic fact, not opinion. IE: the documented opinion at the time becomes historic fact. It can be answered in a factual way not a historic way.
- Why is netstat deprecated? is something a little borderline yet the fact netstat has not been maintained appears to be clean enough.
- Why Linux module API isn't backward compatible? This appears to be a decision plainly documented by Greg Kroah-Hartman
On the flip side I note that the definition of "opinion based" here is:
This question is likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts and citations. It should be updated so it will lead to fact-based answers.
This is subtly different from saying that fact-based answers are possible. Frustratingly, deciding which questions are likely to draw opinion over fact feels very much a matter of opinion. Unless a question has begun to draw opinion based answers it seems a very subjective categorisation.