[bradgessler]

Docker was written off with the caveat of, "but I still use it for my local development environment". I feel like that's a huge advantage for Docker. Maybe I missed it, but all the other mentioned technologies didn't try to solve the problem of providing a consistent development to production environment. That said, Docker still has a lot of problems around making the dev-to-production experience smooth, especially for teams that use OS X for development and run Linux in production.

[bryanlarsen]

That's always been the least interesting thing about Docker for me, since Vagrant solves that particular problem much more completely, and has been around a lot longer than Docker has.

Using Docker for this forces you to do things the Docker way, whereas Vagrant is much more OS and CM agnostic. (CM is configuration manager: you can use puppet, chef, ansible, shell, salt or even Docker: whatever you're already using in production).

[sysk]

My current web app is composed of 10 database hosts and 11 REST APIs. 21 VMs would blow my laptop's resources away while 21 containers run just fine. For me, that makes Docker a lot more attractive for local development. Also, Docker removes the need for a CM if you are into stateless deployments.

[bryanlarsen]

If you're running a large number of VM's, vagrant-lxc is awesome, so are offsite targets. (digital ocean, AWS, et cetera)

Vagrant also has more options for stateless deployments than Docker: docker, packer, nixos, et cetera.

[x0rg]

That's probably the most important thing to me. Also, docker will probably succeed in the enterprise world you, being a Linux based solution.