Comment 3 for bug 1599531

Bunch of good points in that discussion. My 2 cents- overall I think config management stuff shouldn't be in cloud images:

- Agree that the images should be consistent across providers, whether it be VirtualBox, AMI's, etc, as much as possible.
- I think it should be left up to users to install whatever config provider they want. By adding it to the image, you have a few effects that I think are detrimental:
   - Ubuntu devs need to waste time focusing on maintaining the up-to-date ness of those dependencies rather than focusing on the more important stuff.
   - Even if they did that perfectly, there's only a percentage of users who require that specific version / package, and still may need to ensure the right config tool is installed.
   - You set a precedent of Ubuntu's choice for config management, which I'm not sure you want to do, and if you don't want to add in that opinion, you need to add ALL config management packages out there, which leads to:
   - Image bloat.
- On these images, you largely need to do some initial bootstrapping anyway, why not just also ensure that you have the right config management for your use case as part of that?
- I think you can make a case to keeping Juju in given that it's something that Ubuntu is vested in, but can't comment heavily on strategic direction of Ubuntu and how they want things integrated.

Keep in mind I'm somewhat biased as I'm largely an ansible user, but can jump to chef or other config management tools as needed.