I think we correctly closed this question, but it may be good to check back in case comments or edits give information that suggests otherwise.
seems on-topic - troubleshooting faulty hardware using Ubuntu is on-topic, and the question relates to messages seen in Ubuntu
not off-topic - If the answer is, "no, Ubuntu can't do that, because operating systems don't do that, here's why," that's still an answer. I'm skeptical that this is a correct answer (on some machines, it is possible, while booted into Windows, to schedule an automatic boot, and I don't see why that's obviously impossible in Ubuntu).
But either way, if a question has technical comments that explain why it's not about Ubuntu, and the comments have to make technical claims about Ubuntu in order to make any sense, then they should be answers and the question should not be closed for that reason. Obviously there are gray areas, like when someone asks about port forwarding, but in this case I think an answer really would be about Ubuntu's capabilities. The OP assumed this could be done with software.
not unclear, the commented explanation is the answer and should've been posted as one
not unclear - it doesn't show research effort and it could've been asked better, but the description of what the OP wants is unambiguous; the question is not in the slightest unclear
I don't think this question should be considered a duplicate of the proposed target (see my comment), though I admit it's a borderline case.
