Docker for Windows won't run if Razer Synapse driver management tool is running

I looked at the title, then briefly glanced over the discussion here, and guessed it correctly --- "same mutex name". I didn't guess they'd get to the same name that way, however. I thought someone had copy-pasted example code from SO without changing a REPLACE_MUTEX_NAME or similar.

My preferred solution is simpler --- CreateMutex takes a mutex name of at most MAX_PATH characters. That's almost begging you to make it the path to the running executable.

    char name[MAX_PATH];
    GetModuleFileName(0, name, sizeof(name));

I know some of you may be thinking "but what if there are two copies of the application in different directories?" Yes, that would result in two instances, but how often is that a problem? If it is, then make it the binary name-only without the path

    pname = strrchr(name,'\\');

and then unless you name your application something very generic like test.exe, there can only be one. I guess the lesson here is to not overthink things --- I see that often in SO answers too.

> Most complaints, even very good ones, are uninteresting reading.

Many people have valid complaints about StackOverflow's community building, feedback system, moderation, how it prioritises questions and answers, behaviour of people on the site. These are fine interesting discussions about how useful it is, how effectively it works, how a better site might work, how it feels to participate, and can make for interesting reading. Many other people's complaint is that they went to stackoverflow, didn't follow the site rules, the people using stackoverflow approximately upheld the site rules, and now the poster acts in a way that shows they feel personally slighted by the fact that a site exists which rejected them. This not only makes for uninteresting reading, it's also an unfair attack on stackoverflow which ought to be allowed to exist with any legal rules it likes, without being slighted for simply having rules of some sort of other.

> That's obviously wrong.

If what you suggest I'm saying is "obviously wrong", then come on, you can do better than that, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation".

> Did you honestly think I was saying it was mandatory? Come on, you can do better than that. "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation"

You made up some things you "have to do" and then complained that you don't want to have to do those things to hack the site to let you do what you want. Objecting to that whole premise is my point. "You think it's mandatory" is the strong interpretation, the weak one is that you're deliberately building a strawman of things you "have to do" which don't actually exist. 1) you don't need to hack or farm, you can genuinely participate. 2) you don't need to post niche questions or hunt popular questions, you can deal with normal questions. 3) If you do this, you won't be able to jump quickly to the thing you want. This is not a problem with the site, this is part of its design, if you dislike that design then we're back to "the site is not mandatory" and if you want to be so great you don't have to go through the normal processes then we're back to "how should the site know that you're not a total spambot if you won't go through the procedure they've setup which involves community feedback on the things you do (which paying money would not involve)?

The difference is that those sites generally don't hard gate features behind having a certain amount of MeowMeowBeenz.

Sort of -- Yelp will hide negative reviews from brand new users, and HN enables some light moderation features and faster commenting as your karma increases.

> didn't follow the site rules [...] rejected them

That's not what's happening here. Neither I nor crooked-v have broken any rules or gotten rejected.

> If what you suggest I'm saying is "obviously wrong", then come on, you can do better than that, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation".

Sorry, I can't think of any other way to interpret what you said. You gave a definition of sour grapes that is different from the normal definition, but fatally flawed. Normally the "strongest plausible interpretation" would be to assume you mean the normal definition of sour grapes, but that would contradict your entire argument as I understand it, so I can't do that.

While for my argument, I was saying "you have to do X to do Y, which is dumb" and you responded to "you have to do X" in a vacuum. Obvious weakening.

> you don't need to post niche questions or hunt popular questions, you can deal with normal questions.

If it's not niche, I can nearly guarantee it's already been answered, or that I'd be responding to a duplicate where the rules-following behavior would be trying to get it closed.

> you don't need to hack or farm, you can genuinely participate

Not when I rarely find questions appropriate to respond to, and the correct way to respond is always a comment. I would have to seek out questions just for points, which is farming.