Promote Vagrant box as preferred local Juju environment

[JoshuaStrobl]

As a new charm author, I found it confusing when browsing the documentation on creating an Ubuntu Juju environment that is local (reference: https://juju.ubuntu.com/docs/config-local.html).

It was recommended to utilize LXC v.s. Vagrant, however you run into the following issues when recommending it:
1. Setting up a Linux container with Ubuntu Server, the necessary dependencies, manually switching to local environment, etc. is far more time-consuming than using Vagrant (which there are already a plethora of Vagrant boxes with local environment set up already).
2. LXC is inherently problematic when trying to develop Juju Charms on non-Linux systems. While I personally don't develop on non-Linux systems, there shouldn't be an unnecessary barrier for other developers that want to bring their services, product, etc. to the Ubuntu ecosystem.
3. While everyone's use-case may vary, I personally set up a Vagrant box and found it to be just as stable as using an LXC (preferrably I'd use Docker, but to each their own).

So, I'd like to suggest the following:
1. Have https://juju.ubuntu.com/docs/config-local.html have content regarding deploying using Vagrant, while having a header note (linking to https://juju.ubuntu.com/docs/config-LXC.html) that states something along the lines of "Using LXC as a local provider is also an available option".
2/1a. If not entirely promoting the use of Vagrant, eliminate the "beta" tag, which one could argue creates a naturally reluctance to use that method / technology.

[Nick Veitch (evilnick)]

Thanks for the feedback.
The vagrant docs have a beta tag as that was the recommendation in the release notes (that the feature should be considered beta) but it is probably stable enough now.

[Nick Veitch (evilnick)]

since there is a howto on vagrant now, i am considering this answered.