Completely agree. I do not see any advantage here. To add: Virtualbox is supported on Windows/Mac/Linux, is trivial to install, and is the default Vagrant prov

Completely agree. I do not see any advantage here. To add: Virtualbox is supported on Windows/Mac/Linux, is trivial to install, and is the default Vagrant provider. If I want top performance, I can choose other options. Vagrant+Parallels on Mac is nice. So is Vagrant+KVM on Linux. A Vagrantfile is 4 lines for a basic config, and vagrant will create one for you, and your config is saved should you need to edit it. It's trivially easy. Multipass has the same needs the moment you need anything beyond the defaults. So I'd call that a wash. How is "vagrant up" harder than "multipass launch"? What does "vagrant-specific provisioning" means exactly? Vagrant provisions with the same toolchain you are probably using for your production servers. It supports ansible, chef, and puppet. How is that "vagrant-specific"? When I want to launch a development vm, I want it provisioned in specific ways that match the production instances I will eventually be launching. Vagrant+Ansible gives me that in spades, and it's easy. The Hashicorp toolchain and ecosystem also provides other advantages: Packer for easily building my own base images, and targeting them at multiple hypervisors, including EC2. Not to mention that all distros are supported. Packer also answers the GP's provisioning complaint. Provision a VM, and use it as the basis for a new box in Packer. Problem solved. This reminds me of people who like MySQL "because it's easier than Postgres." Not easier. Just not the same.