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?
What would make nanobox different?
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/
Nanobox runs on top of Docker (see this explanation 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.
I'll check the options for sharing the container file system with the host (editing source, db persistency, files persistency, etc.)
I'll be back at debugging my provisioning scripts.