

Vagrant 1.1, VMware Fusion - googletron
http://www.hashicorp.com/blog/vagrant-1-1-and-vmware.html

======
mitchellh
Whew. This was/is a big one.

Vagrant 1.1 is the first release in Vagrant's history that is provider-
agnostic. I'm shipping a Fusion provider and open source AWS and RackSpace
provider, but the interface itself is completely open source and documented,
meaning anyone can add their own providers:
<http://docs.vagrantup.com/v2/plugins/providers.html>

And the provider API was introduced while retaining full compatibility for
stock Vagrant 1.0.x installs. I'm really proud of that achievement. Vagrant
1.1 is a drop-in replacement for many organizations.

Vagrant 1.1 is already in use in production at many large organizations, the
biggest of which at the moment may be Yammer. The QA process for 1.1 was
actually done by shipping to the big companies first. That was quite an
experience, but I think that will result in a stable 1.1 experience for the
masses.

Anyways, I'm here to answer any questions if you have them.

~~~
bradchoate
Why does the VMware Fusion provider cost $30 more than VMware Fusion itself?
I'm not against commercial software, but the price is off-putting,
particularly for personal use.

~~~
mitchellh
I actually tend to view it as $20 less than the professional version of Fusion
($99). :) Hehe. But, yes, the provider works with the trial, regular, and
professional versions, so you can argue it is $30 more.

The reason is that VMware Fusion is woefully underpriced on Mac OS X systems,
due to steep competition from Parallels. The equivalent on Windows is $249.

My argument is that the value you get out of something like Vagrant + VMware
Fusion pays for itself in less than an hour per seat (assuming you're billing
more than $79/hour). I find that to be pretty good value, rather than
comparing it directly to VMware Fusion.

~~~
bradleyland
But the alternatives aren't Vagrant + Fusion versus VMWare on Windows. The
alternatives are Vagrant + VirtualBox versus Vagrant + VirtualBox, which is
zero cost.

------
Xylakant
In general a cool release, mostly because it finally adds providers. However,
given the price point of 79 USD per seat, I can hold my breath a little
longer, especially since VMWare adds another 50-70 Euros on top of that.
That's somewhere in the ballpark of 140 USD to replace something that's
basically working fine.

~~~
dahjelle
I don't think you need to use VMWare. I understood from the article that you
can upgrade to 1.1 and continue to use VirtualBox as the provider with
basically no hiccups.

~~~
lox
Yeah, I must admit I was confused by this as well. Do we need Fusion + a
license for the Vagrant VMWare provider, or is the Vagrant VMWare provider
stand-alone?

~~~
Argorak
You need both, thats why its a steep price.

------
benregn
A DigitalOcian.com provider already in the works by johnbender[1].

[1] <https://github.com/johnbender/vagrant-digitalocean>

------
IgorPartola
So looking at the AWS plugin, this means that I can spin up a puppet-
configured machine that is very similar to my dev environment, other than (1)
no filesystem sharing and (2) I don't control the network. That's fairly
snazzy, in terms of controlling dev and prod in the same manner.

------
andyl
Wow - I'm excited about the provider interface, especially for AWS and the
other cloud services.

Question - could Vagrant work with LXC?

~~~
fgrehm
I'm on it <https://github.com/fgrehm/vagrant-lxc> ;) I need to make it work as
a real Vagrant plugin since I started it before 1.1 was actually released

------
markeganfuller
Definitely happy about this, especially since AWS is one of the providers.

