> How did we get to the point where people feel they need to go to the length of embedding an ELF loader in their binary (!!) rather than just linking with glibc?

Most Linux distros have been built around the ability to compile their software together in a large repository, from source, so this was rarely ever an issue. Proprietary distribution or executing binaries from the internet like on Windows just wasn't really a common issue.

The problem arises when you start combining distros (glibc and MUSL for instance) or if you try to do the Windows model of sharing software. Historically, projects just compiled different versions for different distros.

When doing static compilation, just targetting an old version of glibc (which is generally forward compatible) also works.

You can hack your way into using software like this (or rather, have an LLM hack its way in) but I don't think any real distro actually cares. This issue exists in a quite small space where people are trying to use proprietary software built for glibc in MUSL environments for whatever reason, and the usual compatibility tricks don't work.

It's a niche use case for most Linux distros. It's not a "complete failure" of the GNU/Linux userland, it's the result of a couple of proprietary components not having MUSL builds available, or MUSL-based distributions not including libraries people want.

I'd like glibc to change so that these hacks aren't necessary for these use cases anymore, but it's not really a problem in practice for the vast majority of Linux use cases.

I'm mostly taken aback all the solutions devised to go around the issue, especially the container-based ones. I really disliked it when I grabbed the flatpak version of Blender only to find out that it can't have HIP support. (they might have fixed it by now but you get the point)

Linux loves to leave papercuts unfixed or undocumented for decades. The solution is to build against an older version of glibc but no one tells you that or how to do it.

Complete failure is strong words when lots and lots of Linux boxes are running just fine.

I think the disconnect is mostly people that can't decide if they want a stable distro or a rolling release distro. Most everyone uses a stable distro because it's stable, but then the want some up-to-date software that isn't ore-built for their (crusty old) stable distro and they get annoyed. My solution was to finally give in and embrace a rolling release distro (I use arch, btw). If there isn't a package for something I want, it's not hard to build something myself because all my build tools, kernel, and libs are up to date.

Other reasons to want static linking is to distribute proprietary software with no source code available. Linux certainly does not cater to that scenario and I suppose some might call that a complete failure ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯

Glibc has a terrible history of binary incompatibility. If that's so hard to believe, try running binaries built on one distribution on other distributions. Linux has two stable ABIs: the kernel ABI for static programs, and, ironically, WINE.

> How did we get to the point where people feel they need to go to the length of embedding an ELF loader in their binary (!!) rather than just linking with glibc?

Due to FUD, mostly.

Sane people do just link with an old enough version of glibc.