Yes, I would think static linking would lead to higher disk usage for binaries.
That analysis doesn't really answer the question re: disk usage and doesn't really quantify how much sharing there is from shared libraries, just how many shared libraries don't get shared... basically "Do your installed programs share dynamic libraries" is answered as "not really" because there s a long tail of libraries that are not widely shared.
Drew's stats shows 80% of binaries link to libc (1.8MB on my system), which by itself could be "a lot" of extra storage. It wouldn't be 80% * 1.8MB per executable if unused symbols weren't linked, but still
The problem is not the size, but for Linux distributions to provide fast security updates for shared libraries instead of having to patch and recompile tons of packages.
That also depends on how the libraries are structured. As far as I know, if you were to successfully link in glibc, that would include the entirety of it, however musl libc is structured so only the parts (at function level?) are linked in.
That analysis doesn't really answer the question re: disk usage and doesn't really quantify how much sharing there is from shared libraries, just how many shared libraries don't get shared... basically "Do your installed programs share dynamic libraries" is answered as "not really" because there s a long tail of libraries that are not widely shared.
Drew's stats shows 80% of binaries link to libc (1.8MB on my system), which by itself could be "a lot" of extra storage. It wouldn't be 80% * 1.8MB per executable if unused symbols weren't linked, but still