Linux didn't make that choice, some Linux distros did. And it's a trade off - the alternative uses dramatically more disk space. Plus, with a package manager, sharing libraries becomes much, much easier.
If you really, truly, hate that then just statically link stuff. That's always been allowed.
Statically linked Linux binaries will run for decades. The idea that Linux binaries rot while windows has some magic that makes them live is just made up.
"But what about glibc???" Yeah that's made up. Glibc doesn't break ABI like people think they do. If you look, the glibc ABI is incredibly stable across decades. SOME highly specific gnu-only extensions have been broken. You're not using those, it's a made up problem.
If you really, truly, hate that then just statically link stuff. That's always been allowed.
Statically linked Linux binaries will run for decades. The idea that Linux binaries rot while windows has some magic that makes them live is just made up.
"But what about glibc???" Yeah that's made up. Glibc doesn't break ABI like people think they do. If you look, the glibc ABI is incredibly stable across decades. SOME highly specific gnu-only extensions have been broken. You're not using those, it's a made up problem.