#just in case because of the way that abusing a daemon or trying to remove one is seen in-universe

[margridarnauds]

Absently thinking about a HDM/BG3 fusion where Raphael has a fox daemon -- too commonplace, too tied to the mortal planes, a reminder that, unlike a true devil, he actually does HAVE a soul. The way that it would be something that he's simultaneously ashamed of (would he even try to sever it from him at some point? Only to fail?) and also something that gives him an edge in dealings, making him look more normal to mortal clients, more approachable.

Also because I am forever on the Tavphael train, Tav being the only person in a thousand years to be allowed to touch her.

[drakaripykiros130ac]

A new absurd Team Broccoli/Alicent “the self-declared victim” defense argument:

“Alicent put symbols of the Seven around the Keep because they remind her of her mother and this is her way of trying to be close to her.”

And this required her to REMOVE the Targaryen heraldry from the Keep? The heraldry of the ruling House?

Rhaenyra lost her mother at a young age too (something I have noticed a lot of TG stans completely ignore. They sympathize with Alicent for the same things Rhaenyra herself suffered/lost but show complete lack of empathy towards the Valyrian girl they simply don’t like). You never saw her trying to replace the Targaryen heraldry with Arryn around the Keep so she could feel “close” to Queen Aemma. She honored her in her personal sigil.

It is one thing to have small symbols wrapped around your neck, adorn your dresses with them, have them in your chambers as a way to induce some personal comfort and it is a whole different matter to do this:

I mean, have some tact, woman.

This move was not Alicent’s way of feeling spiritual or indicating that she was missing her mother. This was her way of sending a subtle message : that the Hightowers are making their move and taking control of the Iron Throne.

Rhaenyra and Daemon had every right to gang up on her the way they did and call her out on her bullshit. Aside from the fact that as a consort, she does not have the authority to make such great changes, what she did can easily be perceived as treasonous (it wouldn’t be the first time. *cough* green dress *cough*).

What Alicent did just proves my point from a previous post that the Hightowers have always been hypocritical social-climbing opportunists who use religion for their own personal ambitions. In this case, Alicent used the Hightowers’ very close relation to the Faith as a way to commit treason against the ruling House.

The lengths some people go to justify her actions just amaze me. She is not a good and pious woman! She is a vindictive, hateful, bitter and jealous *itch, who praises “honor and decency” through a self-righteous attitude and then does despicable things: starting a vendetta against three innocent children, demanding the removal of a child’s eye in retribution, emotionally and physically abuses a Princess of the Blood, gossips, conspires, lies, tattletales, etc. A good and pious woman doesn’t do all these things.

[lemonhemlock]

Hi! i dont know if you have already answered this, atleast i couldn't find it so i wanted to ask u in hotd wasn't vaemonds petition protected by guestright and wasnt vaemond a kin to rhaenyra and even daemon in a way with rhaenys etc (and as the velaryons and targaryens are constantly intermarrying) ...and aren't kinslaying and breaking guest rights super bad in westeros? I thought especially with how misogynistic westeros is won't at least some of the nobles want viserys to remove rhaenyra as heir. I just find hotd full of plot holes and wanted to know if you have a different more feasible possibility for this to happen 🙂. Also how come baela and rhaena not have any problems at dinner, for all his faults wasn't vaemond their uncle? I felt rhaenys kinda felt bad so why don't they show baela / rhaena similarly?

Green greetings! Interesting question about guest right. I suppose so, yes, Vaemond came to the Red Keep in an official capacity, within the bureaucratic framework of a petition. He was basically suing Rhaenyra and turned to the Crown to settle this dispute over patrimony. The Crown was supposed to act like a mediator/judge, allow the claimants to present their case and decide accordingly. Vaemond wasn't breaking any laws by doing so, he was explicitly trying to settle this case legally. This is in reference of Vaemond being considered an usurper by team black. How is he an usurper if he didn't enforce ownership over Driftmark while his brother was dying? Instead, he looked to first obtain the official approval from the highest court of law in the land - the very institution of the sovereign.

It's not Vaemond's problem that Viserys was rotting away in his bedroom. Monarchy is an institution, if the King is unable to carry out his duties, these duties will be taken over and performed by somebody else. Governance of the Realm cannot just stop because Viserys is too inconvenienced to do his job. The problem was that Viserys hauled his arse in the throne room and starting abusing his powers as sovereign. This scene is very emotional and framed very heroically - it is pretty effective at pulling at your heartstrings and a lot of people can empathize with the notion of a dying man using his very last strengths to help his daughter. But, make no mistake, what Viserys is doing is theft. He is taking away House Velaryon's lands and titles and allowing them to be transferred to a person with zero legal claim over them. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Corlys/Laenor agree to this, they are complicit in this abuse as well. They are failing in their duties towards their House and their relatives.

Now, I will argue that guestright doesn't grant you immunity from treason or from other crimes. It just means you shouldn't be attacked when you're in the vulnerable position of being inside someone else's home. However, the King has the power to enact punishments in accordance to your crimes, so I don't think you can invoke guestright in the context of a trial, else the judicial power of the sovereign would be unenforceable. Viserys had the power to bestow punishment on Vaemond invoking lèse-majesté* but that had to be framed as an official sentence, with a clear crime being singled out and a clear punishment associated with it. Furthermore, Viserys merely stated his favourite type of sanction - cutting off Vaemond's tongue, not killing him - which, while still abusive, it's at least not full out death. Daemon is the one who acts unilaterally and illegally here, since he wasn't designated in any way to be the executioner. In addition, he takes the punishment to the extreme: he outright kills Vaemond, instead of respecting the King's instruction of just maiming him.

*Obviously, Vaemond being punished for telling the truth is an abuse of power. The truth here is that Rhaenyra's children are bastards; the whore accusation can be framed as lèse-majesté, though, since it is an insult, whereas bastardy is a statement of fact. They chose to add this in the show to make people sympathize with Rhaenyra and frame her as a victim of patriarchy - the poor woman being punished for her sexuality. Needless to say, this doesn't happen in the text and this act is presented much more villainously.

I think Daemon/Viserys and Corlys/Vaemond are second cousins once removed in the show. In the books, Vaemond is Corlys' nephew, so that would make them third cousins. I'm not sure if the kinslaying accusations still apply, though the Karstarks were much more distantly related to the Starks and they still invoked this is the main series. Kinslaying cannot be applied in official execution situations, though. If some family member commits a crime for which the punishment incurred is death, you'd be legally in the right to carry out that execution, should you occupy an appropriate social station that allows you this much judicial power, of course. Viserys/Vaemond would have been similar to the Robb/Rickard Karstark situation from that POV (obviously, what Viserys would have been doing is a gross abuse of justice, whereas Rickard's crime was plain for all to see). Since what Daemon did was carry out an extrajudicial execution, though, I suppose you could apply the kinslaying accusations, as well.

I thought especially with how misogynistic westeros is won't at least some of the nobles want viserys to remove rhaenyra as heir. I just find hotd full of plot holes and wanted to know if you have a different more feasible possibility for this to happen 🙂.

You might want to check out some of my tags: succession for the iron throne, the anarchy tm, division of houses during the dance of the dragons, bastardposting.

In short, a brother-sister civil war is a logical fallacy when it comes to an Anarchy-inspired plotline, bastards inheriting are a big deal in Westeros and Rhaenyra's allies don't make sense. :)

Also how come baela and rhaena not have any problems at dinner, for all his faults wasn't vaemond their uncle? I felt rhaenys kinda felt bad so why don't they show baela / rhaena similarly?

Yes, Vaemond is their uncle and they should absolutely feel some kind of way about this, especially Baela, who's been living on Driftmark the past few years. This is one of the reasons why I don't like Baela and Rhaena as characters; in the text at least it can be said that they get personalities of their own, but their their indifference towards their mother's house being repeatedly disrespected, their nonchalant behaviour towards being usurped (by both Rhaenyra and Corlys later on) is just not vibing with me. The narrative keeps them sheltered from the Dance as much as possible; they seem to exist as characters on the page simply to prop up Daemon and Rhaenyra and, to each their own, but I can't be bothered with that.

[moonlitgleek]

What's the connection of Aegon the Unworthy to Rhaenyra? I've never seen or read anything in the lore of Rhaenyra being an Unworthy or problematic ruler like Aegon IV?

What I was referring to in my original post was that both Aegon IV and Rhaenyra were monarchs who put their personal pleasure and desires ahead of the realm and its laws. The power of the Iron Throne was a vehicle for them to use to satisfy their fancies and caprices, and little more. But the similarities do not end there: both were brazen about their affairs; both bestowed favor (or tried to, in Aegon’s case) on a lover publicly; both cared little for legalities; both used their obvious bastards to get the property of their purported fathers, Laenor Velaryon and Ossifer Plumm; both took action that threatened to send the realm into a civil war (Rhaenyra by having an affair and passing her bastards as trueborn heirs, Aegon by legitimizing his bastards and giving Daemon the sword Blackfyre, one of the visible symbols of Targaryen legitimacy - and one that had been used to argue that its wielder was the heir to the throne before - while casting shadow on his sister-wife’s fidelity and showing public disfavor to his heir to the point where rumors abounded that he was planning to disinherit him); both abused royal power even before they ascended to the throne, both were vindictive, cruel and consummately selfish. The list goes on.

As for Rhaenyra being a problematic ruler, boy oh boy. There is an abundance of evidence to that in the text that I’m wondering if perhaps you only read TWOIAF but not The Rogue Prince or The Princess and The Queen? The latter two really paint a picture a proper tyrant with a heavy inclination to abuse the law for her personal gain and pleasures, whether during her time as Princess of Dragonstone or her short tenure as queen.

Under the cut for length.

As Princess of Dragonstone, Rhaenyra’s most infamous act that bespoke of her indifference to the laws governing the realm she claimed as hers was her brazen affair with Ser Harwin Strong that produced three boys that she claimed fathered by her husband Laenor Velaryon, but who were facially the bastard sons of her lover rather than her husband. Trying to pass three obvious bastards as trueborn princes not only speaks of the extent of Rhaenyra’s belief of her own supreme power that (she thought) allows her to claim unprecedented privilege by getting her boys acknowledged as trueborn heirs based on her own say so, but also shows her willingness to flout the law and jeopardize the integrity of the line of succession for the sake of her own pleasure. According to Archmaester Gyldayn, it was high treason that Rhaenyra brashly committed by claiming bastards as trueborn heirs to the Iron Throne. Politically speaking, this was an awful political action that undermined Rhaenyra’s already tremulous position as heiress, but more importantly, it was an outright invitation for a future succession war even without the Dance happening. No one was ever going to accept the throne being passed to an obvious bastard while trueborn male heirs to King Viserys I lived, not the Westerosi nobility, not Rhaenyra’s brothers, not even her second husband Daemon the Rogure Prince who assuredly would have pushed for his two sons’ rights over the three nominal Velaryon princes. This decision on Rhaenyra’s part was a civil war waiting to happen, one way or another. The fact that she thought she could get away with it and that everyone would accept her kids’ parentage on her word is a testament of a despotic view of her power and what allowances it gave her, and a clear statement of her disregard of the laws governing Westeros. I mean, I don’t really have to argue how damaging to the realm such an attempt was, do I? The main novels made that argument quite effectively with Cersei’s children.

Of that inherently destabilizing act came two instances that set the tone of Rhaenyra’s behavior when it came to covering her treason, and emphasized her dismissal of the law as something that didn’t apply to her. The first is the tiff between her brother Aemond and her three Velaryon sons in which he called them Strongs that escalated to her second son Lucerys using a dagger to slash at Aemond taking out his right eye. In the aftermath, Rhaenyra demanded that Aemond be questioned “sharply” till he revealed where he heard the Strong rumor. She wanted Aemond, all of ten years old then, to be tortured so she could make a statement about her intolerance of the “rumors” of her sons’ parentage, completely ignoring the fact that someone armed her five-year-old child with live steel that he then used on his uncle permanently injuring him. Mind you, Alicent’s demand that Lucerys’ eye be put out in retribution for Aemond’s eye was just as monstrous, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because Alicent was awful does not make Rhaenyra any less awful. One wanted a child maimed, another wanted a child tortured.

The other example happened after the death of both Laena and Laenor Velaryon when their father Corlys was stricken by fever raising the question about the inheritance of Driftmark. Rhaenyra urged her goodfather to name her son Lucerys the heir to Driftmark, except, you know, Lucerys was not actually a Velaryon so he didn’t have any right to the Velaryon inheritance, no matter how Rhaenyra insisted otherwise. When Corlys’ nephew Vaemond objected and argued that Driftmark should pass to him because Rhaenyra’s children were bastards (admittedly purposely ignoring the claims of Baela and Rhaena Targaryen, Laena’s daughters by Daemon Targaryen, in the process), Rhaenyra had Daemon seize Vaemond and with no trial or due process, had him beheaded and fed his body to her dragon, an atrocity that was later compounded when Vaemond’s brothers went to Viserys I with their families to ask for justice and press their claim, only for the king to have their tongues removed, every single one of them, based on his previous edict that he’d remove the tongue of any who talked about the Strong rumors. That’s a gross mockery of justice and law, an infringement on the rights enjoyed by nobles, and a blatant show that Rhaenyra thought she could do whatever she wanted, even illegally seizing and murdering a noble with no trial. How very Aerys II of her.

Those are, unequivocally, the actions of a tyrant that also show what an awful political actor Rhaenyra was. There are some other examples of her bad political action during her time as Princess of Dragonstone, but I’m not going to get into them because being a bad political player doesn’t automatically equate to being a tyrant. Aenys was a terrible and ineffective political actor, but he was no tyrant. It just happens that Rhaenyra was both. Her actions during the Dance and her short tenure sitting the Iron Throne only damned her further on both accounts. Even at the height of her victory, her vengeance and whims proved her an appalling leader and ultimately led to her losing any legitimacy she could have claimed when her actions led to the smallfolk of King’s Landing storming the Dragonpit in a clear rejection of her rule (and to be fair, of Aegon II’s as well), and to even her most leal noble allies deserting her.

During the course of the Dance, Rhaenyra sanctioned the murder of Aegon II’s heir, the six-years-old Prince Jaehaerys, and started a rewarding manhunt for his daughter, the six-years-old Jaehaera and his youngest son, the toddler Maelor, that involved sending out “knights inquisitors” AKA torturers to wring information about them from the people. Strategically and politically, Rhaenyra prolonged the war in pursuit of personal vengeance and ignored Corlys Velaryon’s counsel of war-ending efforts. She insisted on inflicting severe punishments on those who served Aegon II, lined the walls of the Red Keep with severed heads daily (something that soured the smallfolk of King’s Landing on her and led to a comparison to Maegor the Cruel), refused to offer reasonable surrender terms to Lords Baratheon, Lannister and Hightower, and summarily had the Hand Otto Hightower and several members of the small council executed with Tyland Lannister sent to the torturers, all of which made bending the knee to Rhaenyra a rather unattractive option and ensured that the lords on Aegon II’s side would continue to fight to the end since their choices were death in battle or death after surrender. If all the roads led to death, why not go down fighting? Corlys Velaryon argued for pardons and hostages from the noble lords, for Alicent and Helaena to be sent to the Faith and Aegon and Aemond to the Wall, for Princess Jaehaera to be his own ward and in time wed Aegon the Younger in a conciliatory move between the two factions. Rhaenyra actively rejected any attempt of peace talks and chose vengeance instead.

She then doubled down on her brutality and went on to turn the smallfolk against her and alienate her own allies out of paranoia. She showed utter tone-deafness and lack of care for the people of whom she claimed the right to rule when she redirected resources away from a populace wrought by war and hunger and to preparations of a “lavish” party for her last Velaryon son to mark his installation as Prince of Dragonstone. Taxing the people to throw a party is damningly selfish in normal circumstances but doing it in time of war and winter when the people have been suffering for a prolonged period of time as it was (for a petty fight over the throne between two spoiled children no less) is reprehensible. The storming of the Dragonpit was a natural response and a testament to the level of misery the Dance inflicted on the people that facing fire-breathing creatures became an acceptable risk. This was a rejection of the dragons, greens and blacks alike, brought to head by Rhaenyra pushing a populace already pushed to the brink to throw a party. The frankly idiotic order for Addam Velaryon’s arrest and the execution of Nettles in the wake of the Two Betrayers and news of Nettles’ relationship with Rhaenyra’s husband Daemon came after that, and was crippling to Rhaenyra in every way. 

First came another instance of Rhaenyra’s disregard for the law by ordering the arrest of someone who proved nothing but loyal to her and who later went on to die in her service for the grand crime of being bastard-born, made worse by her demand of Lord Mooton of Maindenpool to break one of the oldest tenents of law to kill a teenager protected by guest right under his roof. Which made his options to either defy Rhaenyra’s order which was tantamount to treason in her eyes and basically forfeited his life, or violate an ancient and widely respected taboo and bring down the wrath of the gods upon him (and face the wrath of Daemon and his dragon as well). That the Maidenpool maester showed Prince Daemon and Nettles Rhaenyra’s orders and was promptly followed by Lord Mooton’s defection to Aegon II comes as no surprise in the face of the “foul choice” the queen gave him. Second was the devastating result of that decision. Through her paranoia and vengeful impulses, Rhaenyra effectively forced her allies to turn on her. Besides Lord Mooton, that edict lost her her two most loyal supporters: Coryls Velaryon who warned his nominal grandson Addam of Rhaenyra’s orders leading to Addam’s escape and Coryls’ arrest, and Daemon Targaryen who helped Nettles escape then took off to settle a personal score with Aemond, abandoning Rhaenyra. Considering that Coryls provided like, half of Rhaenyra’s army and all her naval force, Daemon was the commander of her troops and her Protector of the Realm, and that he, Addam and Nettles commanded three out of the four mature dragons on the Blacks’ side, that decision was counterproductive to Rhaenyra’s war efforts and a serious blow to her military strength. It was only Addam Velaryon’s stalwart valor at the Second Battle of Tumbleton that prevented the greens’ descent on Rhaenyra in King’s Landing.

Too, and relatedly, that edict and its consequences also sent a rather damning message to Rhaenyra’s supporters and created uncertainty within her ranks. She was turning on her own allies by this point for absolutely no reason. She ordered a loyal dragonrider’s arrest for no crime just because two other dragonseeds betrayed her and threw one of her staunch supporters, her one-time goodfather, in the black cells awaiting trial and execution. If the queen could turn so easily on her most loyal subjects and on a lord with the weight, influence and familial connection to House Targaryen like Corlys Velaryon whose family served the queen faithfully and even died for her, if she gave orders to have her own husband subdued and delivered to her in King’s Landing, what’s stopping her from doing the same to the next lord who displeased her?

So I’d say that Rhaenyra was more than just problematic, anon. In light of how she showed herself to be dismissive of the law as something that didn’t apply to her, a dreadful political player who was more interested in serving her own wishes and wants than in anything that benefited the realm, and a dishonorable and brutal figure in both war and peace with no respect to law or social taboos or the rights of the nobility or the suffering of the smallfolk, I’d say she proved herself a tyrant and earned her place as one of the worst Targaryen monarchs in the text.

[not-poignant]

"I don't ever want to be alone with the tsar." Oh yas. Have you ever watched Coraline? (if not, might not want to read further because spoilers.) The tactics the other mother uses on coraline are really similar to the ones the tsar uses on Jack. Exploiting vulnerabilities, creating a split in reality by introducing them to a 'better' life that only THEY can provide. (1)

Okay this was a five part message so it’s going under a read more! :D

*

Coraline had a lot of parallels to mind control in children, where the juxtaposition of ‘loving,warm’ and 'horrifying,abusive’ in the same person causes the child’s mind to split into a dissociative state- unable to reconcile between the two opposing personalities. The child chooses to stay with the other mother because it’s easier than facing the reality of the real world even though this so-called 'paradise’ is only an illusion. (2)

This essentially tricks them into allowing the other mother to remove their souls and use them quite literally as puppets, destroying who they previously were and trapping them in her own world where she can control them.

In Jack’s case, the tsar is tempting him with a life away from discrimination, his own deep-rooted self loathing, etc. by promising to turn him into someone 'important’. As long as he does everything the tsar says (and everything the tsar implies nonverbally.) As long as he doesn’t question anything. As long as he is no longer Jack. Because, as he reminds him, Jack is 'worthless’ on his own, so Jack must mold himself into an extension of the tsar’s will in order to be someone of any worth at all.

Ahh! Jack!!! Let me caress you!!! Also, the whole aspect of Jack being susceptible because he’s already pretty much been conditioned as a child. (4) And yet, even then, he showed signs that he’s subconsciously resisting- that he’s actually wayyy stronger/complex than anyone has given him credit for. I can’t wait. I almost want the tsar to be afraid of Jack’s potential, when or if he ever realizes it. (Really love how you portrayed the tsar! (as if my long ass rambling didn’t clue you in already lol.)) (5)          

*

Yeah, I’m definitely familiar with Coraline! This sort of technique being used on younger people or vulnerable people has been in YA for a long time. I remember reading it in The Gathering by Isobelle Carmody in 1993, and it’s definitely been around since before then too. There’s also elements of it in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy when Lyra is dealing with her mother (the dichotomy of this nice/nasty behaviour is handled really well in her cruel daemon monkey, who Lyra’s mother is also nice/nasty to) in particular, and goodness, countless other stories.

I think it’s prevalent in YA in particular because it helps to teach children how to trust their instincts, along with ‘adults who are nice to you, aren’t always being nice because they’re genuine, trustworthy people’ which is a lesson that is really hard for us to learn. All of us. Regardless of age.

So yeah, the Tsar presses hard on Jack’s sore spots and then immediately soothes that pain with promises that he is the only one who can help him / fix him (don’t ever trust a soul who says ‘no one will ever love you like I do’ folks). He very much pulls lever A, to deliver promise B, to get a particular outcome.

And with Jack already being conditioned to accept a measure of this treatment, and having lived his life knowing ‘what he is’ (hence his ‘Right?’ and laughter, when the Tsar says he’s an Overland, this is stuff that Jack fundamentally believes in his soul) it’s very easy for the Tsar to just smash his way through. Like you are spot on, anon. :D Also spot on with writing that Jack’s already resisting. He really is! He’s even trying it verbally! With the Tsar! This is something he never would have been capable of, not for ages.

He’s been able to test rebelliousness with Pitch, and he’s been encouraged (gently and not-so-gently) to think about things more critically. He’s starting to ask relevant internal questions like ‘Did you kill Fyodor?’ instead of slipping straight into denial. And then he’s starting to trust his instincts: ‘He did kill Fyodor.’

The only way for Jack to be adored by the Tsar, is to subsume his entire personality, and would he be genuinely adored? No. I think Jack realised that (and was just kind of destroyed by it) when he said: ‘You’ll never really like me.’ The Tsar’s response only confirmed it.

I’ll be honest, the Tsar is deliberately trying to push Jack away at this point, to see who he runs to (he’s more interested in exposing the people who are ‘in Jack’s ear’ since he’s pretty certain it’s not just Pitch). Like, the Tsar was too obvious in his abuse, which made it easier for Jack in some ways to deal with it, despite having the stronger emotional reaction.

Also that juxtaposition between loving/warm and horrifically abusive, it is the sadly the most effective way to abuse anyone. And any abuser with the patience for both is usually pretty sadistic, and will be very good at wrecking someone in the process. Among emotional abuse survivors, the loving/warm aspect is called ‘lovebombing.’ The deliberate application of praise, effusive loving words, wonder and more to make a person feel truly special, before systematically taking them apart and watching that person follow you, in the hopes that they will experience the giddiness of lovebombing again. That’s about the point where someone will do just about anything to get that back. :/

But it sucks that it’s so prevalent it has earned its own terminology irl.

[faizrashis1995]

7 Cases When You Should Not Use Docker

Do Not Use Docker if You Need to Boost Speed

Docker containers are smaller and require fewer resources than a virtual machine with a server and a database. At the same time, Docker will use as much system resources as the host’s kernel scheduler will allow. You should not expect Docker to speed up an application in any way.

 What is more, Docker might even make it slower. If you are working with it, you should set limits on how much memory, CPU, or block IO the container can use. Otherwise, if the kernel detects that the host machine’s memory is running too low to perform important system functions, it could start killing important processes. If the wrong process is killed (including the Docker itself), the system will be unstable.

 Unfortunately, Docker’s memory adjustments – the out-of-memory priority on the Docker daemon – do not solve this issue. By contrast, an additional layer between an application and the operating system could also result in speed reduction. Yet, this decrease will be insignificant. Docker containers are not fully isolated and do not contain a complete operating system like any virtual machine.

 Do Not Use Docker if You Prioritize Security

The greatest Docker security advantage is that it breaks the app into smaller parts. If the security of one part is compromised, the rest of them will not be affected.

 However, while isolated processes in containers promise improved security, all containers share access to a single host operating system. You risk running Docker containers with incomplete isolation. Any malicious code can get access to your computer memory.

 There is a popular practice to run a lot of containers in a single environment. This is how you make your app predisposed to the Resource Abuse type of attacks unless you limit the resource container capabilities. For maximum efficiency and isolation, each container should address one specific area of concern.

 Another issue is Docker’s default configuration – users are not namespaced. Namespaces let software resources use other resources only if they belong to a specific namespace.

 Running applications with Docker implies running the Docker daemon with root privileges. Any processes that break out of Docker container will have the same privileges on the host as it did in the container. Running your processes inside the containers as a non-privileged user cannot guarantee security. It depends on the capabilities you add or remove. To mitigate the risks of Docker container breakout, you should not download ready-to-use containers from untrusted sources.

 Do Not Use Docker if You Develop a Desktop GUI Application

Docker does not suit applications that require rich UI. Docker is mainly intended for isolated containers with console-based applications. GUI-based applications are not a priority, their support will rely on the specific case and application. Windows containers are based on either Nano or Core Server – it does not allow users to start up a GUI-based interface or a Docker RDP server in the Docker container.

 Yet, you can still run GUI-based applications developed with Python and the QT framework in a Linux container. Also, you can use X11 forwarding, but this solution is somewhat awkward.

 Do Not Use Docker if You Want to Light Up Development and Debugging

Docker was created by developers and for developers. It provides environment stability: a container on the development machine will work exactly the same on staging, production, or any other environment. This eliminates the problem of various program versioning in different environments.

 With Docker’s help, you can easily add a new dependency to your application. No developer on your team will need to repeat this manipulation on their machine. Everything will be up and running in the container and distributed to the entire team.

 At the same time, you have to do some extra setup to code your app in Docker. Moreover, with Docker debugging, you have to configure logs output and set up debugging ports. You may also need to map ports for your applications and services in containers. So, if you have a complicated and tedious deployment process, Docker will help you out a lot. If you have a simple app, it just adds unnecessary complexity.

 Do Not Use Docker if You Need to Use Different Operating Systems or Kernels

With virtual machines, the hypervisor can abstract an entire device. You can use Microsoft Azure to run both instances of Windows Server and Linux Server at the same time. Docker image, however, requires the same operating system it was created for.

 There is a large database of Docker container images –  Docker Hub. Yet, if an image was created on Linux Ubuntu, it will run only on the exact same Ubuntu.

 If an app is developed on Windows, but the production runs on Linux, you will not be able to use Docker effectively. Sometimes, it is easier to set up a server if you have several static apps.

 Do Not Use Docker if You Have a Lot of Valuable Data to Store

By design, all Docker files are created inside a container and stored on a writable container layer. It may be difficult to retrieve the data out of the container if a different process needs it. Also, the writable layer of a container is connected to the host machine which the container is running on. If you need to move the data elsewhere, you cannot do it easily. More than that, all the data stored inside a container will be lost forever once the container shuts down.

 You have to think of ways to save your data somewhere else first. To keep data safe in Docker, you need to employ an additional tool – Docker Data Volumes. Yet, this solution is still quite clumsy and needs to be improved.

 Do Not Use Docker if You Are Looking for The Easiest Technology to Manage

Being introduced in 2012, Docker is still a new technology. As a developer, you might have to update Docker versions regularly. Unfortunately, backward compatibility is not guaranteed. Moreover, the documentation is falling behind the advancement of the technology. As a developer, you will have to figure some things out yourself.

 In addition, the monitoring options that Docker offers are quite poor. You can get a quick insight into some simple statistics. Yet, if you want to see some advanced monitoring features, Docker has nothing to offer.

 Also, in the case of a large and complex application, the implementation of Docker comes at a cost. Building and maintaining communication between numerous containers on numerous servers will take a lot of time and effort. Yet, there is a helpful tool, which makes it easier to work with multi-container Docker apps, – Docker Compose. Docker Compose defines services, networks, and volumes in a single YAML file.

 Nonetheless, the Docker ecosystem is quite fractured – not all the supporting container products work well with one another. Each product is backed by a certain company or community. The heated competition between those results in product incompatibility.

 To Wrap Up

KeenEthics professionals enjoy working with Docker and often use it for app development. Despite some drawbacks, you can easily use it to run and manage apps side by side in isolated containers.

 Installing an app can be as simple as running a single command – <docker run>. Docker also provides a clean and original isolation environment for each test, making it an important and useful tool for automation testing.

 Docker features offer benefits in terms of dependency management and security. Augmented with such useful tools as Docker Hub, Docker Swarm, and Docker Compose, Docker is a popular and user-friendly solution.

 Despite all the benefits of Docker, you should not use it to containerize each and every application you develop.

 Docker is not the only such a tool in the market either. The alternatives of Docker are rkt, pronounced as ‘rocket’, Linux Containers, or OpenVZ. Each of these with its advantages and disadvantages is quite similar to Docker. The growing popularity and use rates of Docker are caused only by the decision of businesses to adopt it.

 Before jumping to conclusions as for should you use Docker or not, research the project requirements. Talk to your teammates or peers and let them help you decide when to use Docker, when not to use containers, and whether it is one of those Docker use cases.

 Whether you like it or not, this technology has a future. There are some developers and development agencies that hate Docker and try to eliminate it from all their ongoing projects. At the same time, there are specialists who containerize everything they can because they see Docker as a panacea. Perhaps, you should not join either camp. Stay impartial, stay objective, and make a decision depending on a particular situation.[Source]-https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/7-cases-when-not-to-use-docker/

Beginners & Advanced level Docker Certification in Mumbai. Asterix Solution's 25 Hour Docker Training gives broad hands-on practicals.