Comment 6 for bug 1547665

Thanks for commenting Rick.

I understand we don't have enough time to do all the things we want, and we must prioritize the features/fixes. I also understand this is a lower priority on the grand scheme. And you have made the tough call.

Having a deploy "to" KVM _target_ is not the same as having a Juju provider that works with KVM or libvirt. Technically LXD works with other container technologies like Docker, but currently only if you run LXD manually (on the beta 16.04 release) and with special flags that enable Docker compatibility. Even when I get finally get Docker running the experience has many problems ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/docker.io/+bug/1560685 ) and Docker on LXD is not a very good user experience. Because of all the manual steps and series requirements, I have not seen anyone successfully using Juju LXD containers running Docker, and with the complexity I don't expect that anytime soon.

Having a _local provider_ that does not work with Docker is a regression from a Juju perspective. Customers are already asking for running Docker on the local provider in #juju and I am not able to give them a good answer. I would say that not being able to use Docker on the local provider is an adoption blocker for developers.