Comment 97 for bug 1569237

> 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.