> Its vendor lock to have an 'ubuntu' user on Ubuntu, but having a > 'vagrant' user on guests running under vagrant is just expected ?
Well, no and yes. I'm not talking about having the `ubuntu` user, I'm talking about not having the `vagrant` user for Vagrant to work as expected out of the box. Imagine there's a prebuilt mysql package for some Bananas OS that at some point became configured to run mysql daemon under `bananas` user rather then `mysql` by default, and after it's installed there's no `mysql` user in the system. Imagine then that you have some automation that installs mysql and creates some files with `mysql` owner. Would you expect it to fail with 'No such user' error? Or would you be happy to add conditions to your code like `if (os == 'Bananas' and os_version >= 16.04) mysql_user = 'bananas'` I guess not. And what if it happened to all software for every Linux distribution? That would be a nightmare. That's why it's important to follow conventions like the one about the vagrant user. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1569237 Title: vagrant xenial box is not provided with vagrant/vagrant username and password To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-images/+bug/1569237/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
