The reasoning stated is that EROFS is more actively developed than SquashFS. Does that mean that SquashFS is feature incomplete, or that it's more stable?
Went to York the other week, it was just mulled cider or mulled wine stalls, cheap tat stalls, random street food (not the best either). Was fairly disappointed.
Isn't that the purpose though of Ubuntu though? They made it easy, everything is open source, and then people/companies/orgs that want to do things different can just fork it and do their own thing. If they make a better product according to even 1 person, great. Job done. Plenty of people are happy with vanilla Ubuntu.
I don't even use Ubuntu but I sure appreciate the amount of work they've done over the years and I feel they get a lot of stick about it for no good reason.
Gazalargo? Palalargo?