Glibc vs Musl

Discussions center on comparing glibc and musl libc implementations, debating reasons to choose one over the other, compatibility issues, performance, and use cases like containers, servers, and static linking.

📉 Falling 0.5x Open Source
3,674
Comments
18
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#7118
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2009
14
2010
12
2011
38
2012
56
2013
60
2014
130
2015
131
2016
220
2017
130
2018
160
2019
269
2020
274
2021
420
2022
419
2023
468
2024
441
2025
407
2026
25

Keywords

TODO e.g ctypes.sh abs.c GLIBC NTDLL libc.org POSIX libc.so bitbucket.org glibc libc linking linux alpine run linux heap statically code dynamically

Sample Comments

nwmcsween Oct 22, 2013 View on HN

why not a different libc, such as musl?

zobzu Feb 19, 2014 View on HN

the real question is... anyones using this as their libc on servers/desktops with no issues compared to glibc?

ptman Sep 28, 2016 View on HN

probably by using musl instead of glibc

scns Oct 13, 2020 View on HN

Yes it can when you use musl instead of glibc

MYEUHD Mar 10, 2023 View on HN

what are reasons to choose musl over glibc? (or glibc over musl?)

no_time Feb 12, 2023 View on HN

How about forgetting glibc alltogether and statically linking musl?

ausjke Jan 28, 2016 View on HN

looks interesting. what's the difference between this with glibc/musl/etc.

_ZeD_ Oct 14, 2022 View on HN

why should it? glibc is better in almost any measure over musl

ameliaquining Sep 8, 2025 View on HN

Unless you're on a distro like Alpine where musl is the system libc. Which is common in, e.g., containers.

alex23478 Sep 30, 2024 View on HN

Yes, but it's built around musl libc instead of glibc, which causes compatibility problems with some programs