3 ms·

Development Environments That Can Be Shared Between Developers

• pmontra 9y ago
  Vagrant had some portability problems in my experience: the same Vagrantfile works well on some machine and doesn't on others. Differences in the host environment or when the installation is run. What would make nanobox different?
  • technologyvault 9y ago
    Good point/question... re: Nanobox vs. Vagrant, Nanobox is much easier to use than Vagrant, especially for the "common" web developer: https://nanobox.io/why-nanobox/nanobox-vs-vagrant/ https://nanobox.io/why-nanobox/nanobox-vs-vagrant/ Nanobox runs on top of Docker (see this explanation https://nanobox.io/why-nanobox/nanobox-vs-docker/ https://nanobox.io/why-nanobox/nanobox-vs-docker/), and uses Docker to create instant, isolated environments that are exactly the same, whether on your computer, your new devs computer, your outsourced contractor's computer on the other side of the world, in staging environments, and in production. I hope that helps.
    • pmontra 9y ago
      Thanks, so it's Vagrant with docker. It's probably more efficient RAM wise and it can make a better use of multiple CPU cores than VirtualBox based Vagrant. I'll check the options for sharing the container file system with the host (editing source, db persistency, files persistency, etc.)
    • pmontra 9y ago
      I run into a problem with vagrant provision today so I decided to try nanobox. I went to their site and realized that to download and install nanobox I have to register an account. I can't see why this could be a technical requirement for local development. I don't have to register on docker and vagrant sites to use their software. It's a show stopper. I'll be back at debugging my provisioning scripts.