> The trick? It's not statically linked, but dynamically linked. And it doesn't like with anything other than glibc, X11 ... and bdb.
How would that work given that glibc has gone through a soname change since then? If it's from 1996 are you sure the secret isn't that it uses non-g libc?
It suggests someone went into the details of how it was linked and was careful about what it was and wasn't linked to, and perhaps even intervened directly in the low-level parts of the linking process.
