> glibc's hostility towards static linking is arguably a substantial part of why musl has attracted so much interest. Anothre reason is that glibc is equally b

> glibc's hostility towards static linking is arguably a substantial part of why musl has attracted so much interest. Anothre reason is that glibc is equally bad for dynamic linking. Often a binary compiled on recent glibc doesn't work with older glibc. It is certainly possible but quite challenging to compile portable executables on Linux.