I highly disagree. Sure, it contains a lot of buzzwords, but it clearly describes systemd and its philosophy in a single paragraph. It's not the first thing you should throw at someone unprepared (because then it would really be intimidation), but it prevents you from reading 20 pages of documentation and not getting the gist.
Sometimes, a concise, high-level overview is what you need.
Maybe because I've worked in embedded Linux for so long (including on inits of various forms), but that description clearly articulates exactly what systemd is and does and I appreciate the direct, crystal clear technical language rather than some long form essay written assuming a clueless reader with 0 technical background.
You’re pulling my leg, right? The description could be improved, for starters, by forcing the author to not use the word “object.” That overuse alone makes me wonder if the description is satire.
I expect everyone here commenting is familiar with systemd. I doubt very much that anyone who was unfamiliar with systemd and read that description would then have any idea what it does or how it works.
I mean, I'll agree with you in so far as that the wording could be improved further. But I do really, honestly think it's a good summary.
> I expect everyone here commenting is familiar with systemd. I doubt very much that anyone who was unfamiliar with systemd and read that description would then have any idea what it does or how it works.
It depends on what knowledge you expect. If someone is familiar with general init management and some programming concepts, this short summary will get them up to speed (and that's what I/we were arguing). If you grab a layperson of the street and read them this, it's obviously not going to tell them anything - but that's not the target audience.
What I value is a short summary which brings a reader, who knows the concepts and the space a software is operating in, up to speed quickly. And that's what this summary does.
Sometimes, a concise, high-level overview is what you need.