Here are a few reasons why marker interfaces may not be the best solution in all cases, and why regular interfaces can often achieve the same goals more effectively:

Lack of flexibility: Marker interfaces don't provide any functionality; they only serve as a label. Regular interfaces, on the other hand, can declare methods and properties, allowing for more flexible and powerful functionality.

Compatibility: Marker interfaces require a class to explicitly implement them, which can be problematic if you need to apply a marker to a class that you can't modify, such as classes from external libraries or legacy code. In contrast, regular interfaces can be implemented by inheritance, adapter classes, or proxy objects.

Multiple inheritance issues: Some programming languages, like Java, do not support multiple inheritance of classes. This means that a class can only extend one parent class. You may run into issues with multiple inheritance if you have multiple marker interfaces to apply to a class. Regular interfaces can be implemented more flexibly to address this limitation.

Code organization: Marker interfaces can lead to clutter in your codebase, as they don't convey much information about what the class does or why it has a particular marker. Regular interfaces can provide meaningful names and method signatures, improving code readability and maintainability.

Type safety: Regular interfaces provide type checking by defining method signatures that implementing classes must adhere to. This helps catch errors at compile time. Marker interfaces, being empty, don't offer this type of safety.