What is the main problem of this implementation - Non-optimized tables show the size of the image - Docker image trimming in RUN can be problematic - Multiple CMDs, only the last one takes effect - The delete operation does not consider filtering by the "viewing" image

The main issues with this implementation are related to inefficient Docker image management and improper use of Dockerfile instructions:

• Unoptimized tables show image size: Data about image sizes may be collected and displayed without considering layers and caching, leading to inaccurate or excessive data.

• Trimming the image in RUN can be problematic: If RUN commands attempt to manually reduce the image size (e.g., deleting temporary files), it can cause errors or unpredictable behavior, especially if Docker layers are not taken into account.

• Multiple CMDs, only the last one takes effect: A Dockerfile can only have one CMD instruction, which sets the default command. If multiple CMDs are specified, all but the last are ignored, which can lead to unexpected container behavior.

• Deletion operation does not consider filtering by the "visible" image: When deleting images, it does not consider which images or containers are using them, which can lead to deleting necessary images or being unable to delete due to dependencies.

Overall, the problem is the lack of proper management of layers, dependencies, and Dockerfile instructions, leading to inefficient and potentially erroneous builds and image management.