Are you a computer scientist? Because you should be.

>>2
Thanks mom

Dynamic linking is massively overrated.

>>4
Dynamic linking, for me, is a lot like bytecode; it looks really good within the context of itself, but when you step back and look at what it functionally does, you realize how worthless it really is

>>5
The only real, arguable advantage to it I can think of off the top of my head is not having to recompile programs when a security issue is patched. But how much does that really matter if you have a stable internet connection? It'd only be a problem on a system like windows where you get disparate proprietary binaries from all sorts of different places. But dont programs on windows love to package all the libraries they need with the specific version they need with them anyways, so it doesn't even help.
otherwise, the difference in binary size doesn't matter at all(embedding the particular routines used directly or indirectly in the binary vs linking them), its not like static linking inflates things to go binary sizes.

Have you all looked at either GuixSD or NixOS?
As far as I can tell they basically solve all the problems with dynamic linking while still keeping the benefits. It's honestly unbelievable just how many problems they really solve.

Stali Linux died.
http://morpheus.2f30.org/
https://github.com/michaelforney/oasis
http://sabotage.tech/

Had the same issue

>>8
eh. whatever. Suckless and related groups' only worthwhile work is their individual utilities like ii, dwm if you're into tiling, etc. trying to make linux sane overall is a sysiphean task.
Linux is like a windows or mac that respects your freedom and privacy, and that you can configure to present a sane, comfy interface by ignoring most of whats installed and configured.
openbsd (or maybe netbsd) is for if you want a reasonable unix system, plan9 is for if you want an actually reasonable system in general.

>>9
stop posting frogs

>>10
I like their overall philosophy though; an app should fill a single purpose and nothing else, and if the user wants more functionality they should install more apps

>>12
Thats just a simplified version of the basic design philosophy of UNIX/the labs people. Its missing a bunch of big important parts, like consideration of how the parts of a the system work together, how adding or changing functionality in a small way in one place can obsolete large swathes of special purpose bullshit, etc.
Some of them get this right sometimes with stuff like ii, other times their shit is just pointless, and yet other times its retarded "hurr durr less stuff more better"
And on the whole, while using a selection of sanely designed programs that actually compose as parts like god intended can make your superficial YOU-EKS(*retch*) better, linux is already drowned in accumulated bullshit, it cannot be saved.
Trying to make a sane modern UNIX system is impossible and pointless. Theres too much accumulated bullshit to do anything but sweep what you can under the rug and avoid new subsystems that introduce new bullshit to deal with.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html