I think HashiCorp did themselves somewhat of a disservice by presenting Otto as a "successor" to Vagrant. Vagrant is a great technology that solves complex prob

I think HashiCorp did themselves somewhat of a disservice by presenting Otto as a "successor" to Vagrant. Vagrant is a great technology that solves complex problems. Otto uses Vagrant to solve a different set of problems. Otto is designed to automate the provisioning of local dev environments and production environments. While some use Vagrant to solve this problem, it's typically an un-standardized, home-grown solution. Otto is an attempt to standardize and automate the process. FULL DISCLOSURE: I've been working on a project for the last year-ish that solves the exact same problems: Easily provisioning and configuring local dev environments and finding consistent parity between dev and production environments. I'm interested to really dig in and see the differences between Otto and the project I've been working on, Nanobox. Would love some outside feedback so feel free to take a look: https://nanobox.io https://nanobox.io But I digress. I think Otto is less a "successor" to Vagrant, and more of a natural offshoot that solves a different problem. I don't ever see it replacing Vagrant, especially since it uses Vagrant behind the scenes.