[OttoCoddo]

- As far as I know, squashfs is a file system and not an archive format; the "FS" in the name shows the focus.

- It is read-only; Pack is not. Update and delete are not just public yet, as I wanted people to get the taste first.

- It is clearly focused on archiving, rather than Pack wanting to be a container option for people who want to pack some files/data and store or send them with no privacy dangers.

- Pack is designed to be user-friendly for most people; CLI is very simple to work with, and future OS integration will make working with it like a breeze. It is far different from a good file system focused on Linux.

- I did not compare to squashfs, but I will be happy to see any results from interested people.

My bet is on Pack, obviously, to be much faster.

[dur-randir]

- loop-mount is a thing

- being read only is mostly a benefit to an archive. Back in the days when drives had been small, I occasionally wanted to update a .rar, but in the last ~5 years I can't remember a case for it.

- it's fine, but don't think that others' use cases are invalid because of your vision

- mount is also a CLI interface

[dur-randir]

As a separate note, had I encountered pack.ac link anywhere on the internet other than here with a description attached, I'd have left it immediately. It just lacks for me any info what it is and why should I try it.

[bravetraveler]

They state how squash is nice for archiving and then you go and ramble about specifically Not Archiving