I don't agree that it made any sense to do that. If they wanted to containerize apps, there has been an open source solution to that for years; Flatpak.
ain't nobody got time for that
As an app maintainer, that wants to support Ubuntu, why would I prefer to deploy a snap server, instead of publishing deb files, or creating a Flatpak?
I have Signal and microG with push notifications. Signal still uses websocket on my device. So, I guess it would be fine without microG push.
Since it only has a receiver and not a transmitter, it's probably completely useless
Baby don't hurt me
I am trying to understand.
Docker, which uses OCI containers that are supported by Docker, Podman, Containerd, systemd-nspawn, etc, is lock-in.
But Nix Shells, which require Nix, are not lock-in.
Also, how are you going to run Nix shells in VLANs? They run on the host's network namespace.
Docker is not only about dependency management. It also offers service "composing", via docker compose, and network isolation for each service.
Although I personally love Nix, and I run NixOS on some of my servers, I do not believe it can replace Docker/Podman. Unless you go the NixOS Containers route.
There are big differences between Snaps and Flatpaks.