33
Is musl libc still not suitable for workstations?
(piefed.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
33 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
63440 readers
441 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
It works, but the memory allocator implementation is way too slower compared to glibc. This especially becomes a performance bottleneck if application does a lot of heap allocation/deallocation.
I think Musl is a better choice when you work on embedded, low-end devices, or statically linked/self-contained applications. For high performance workstation usage, I still prefer glibc.
The default allocator is very slow but it can be changed. Chimera Linux, for example, uses mimalloc which is very fast.