It makes sense for systems where libc is tightly coupled and coversioned with the kernel, e.g. BSDs, but Linux always relied on third-party C libraries and supported static binaries, etc.
You could argue that BSD made the mistake of intending to have a Windows-style C library compat guarantee but not enforcing it, but that was not in scope for Linux. The philosophy has always been syscall-level compat (and there are lots of famous threads with Linus re-enforcing this to others who would presume that things should be “fixed in user space”).
So it’s hardly reasonable to generalize based on some BSD concerns; Linux is WAI and represents the most common Unix-like system people use today by far.
There’s a pretty good argument that this level of compat, while the source of some problems, has also made other things much easier: consider container images that are bundled with their own system libraries. (You could certainly invent schemes to inject these libraries, but dealing with link and library level compatibility seems even more complex to deal with than system call-level compatibility.)