The record issue is a widespread inconvenience, but ultimately nothing more than an inconvenience. Most people just prepended the type in their fields: 'person_name' and 'object_name'.
Some other issues might be:
* The Prelude is hard to update for compatibility reasons, so it clashes with modern Haskell somewhat. A lot of projects will roll their own prelude and add 'NoImplicitPrelude' to the project options.
* Deploying Haskell programs to older corporate servers is doable, but not at all obvious. Stick with C, Bash, and older Perls(5.8.8 is on my router) for maximum portability, if you expect to deploy to servers with a 10 year old image.
Record issue is more than just an inconvenience. I consider it a genuine issue. Having to add 2 lines of import (unqualified name of the type and qualified record module to get the accessors) for every record type you use is a pain. When you work with data-heavy code this ends up hundred of lines of import (see amazonka packages for instance where each request has a record type).
Even if it doubles the number of import statements, I still don't see how that is more than an inconvenience. Having said that, the record issue alone is not the only reason to need qualified imports (as they are also used to resolve collisions of functions that are not auto generated from records).
What would be nice is if Haskell would allow any name collision so long as it could use the type system to disambiguate the function.
Your argument generalizes to "The lack of any feature that can be worked around is an inconvenience", which, okay, but it's not a very useful statement. By that definition, lots of really important things are inconveniences.
Idris[1] already has a working system for this, and it's type system is more complicated (it has much more support for dependent typing). It allows this principle for regular function names as well.
You can't link glibc statically for technical reasons. In some sense, this is the only problem I had. If there was a way to use an alternate libc, it would probably eliminate this issue entirely.
I know there was some work to do a musl and or alpine Linux build. Or both, probably easy to google. Also I'm moderately certain that ghc on FreeBSD and Mac don't need glibc ;)
Targeting musl works out of the box with the musl toolchain and once you have a musl build you can build another ghc with that one with musl as the host.
I haven't tried building a statically linked musl ghc, and I honestly don't know how, but it'd be great to figure out. Any pointers? Speaking of static musl builds, that can be a good choice to create a single bindist of GHC that works on CentOS, Debian, Alpine, and any other Linux distro. Seeing how Docker defaults to Alpine images, it could be beneficial in that regard as well.
Some other issues might be:
* The Prelude is hard to update for compatibility reasons, so it clashes with modern Haskell somewhat. A lot of projects will roll their own prelude and add 'NoImplicitPrelude' to the project options.
* There's also this presentation: https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander/tmp/pres/2016-05-11-why...
* Deploying Haskell programs to older corporate servers is doable, but not at all obvious. Stick with C, Bash, and older Perls(5.8.8 is on my router) for maximum portability, if you expect to deploy to servers with a 10 year old image.