To me all the difficulty is caused by the obscuration. Once you get to the point where he refuses to say which software he's talking about, your attention scatters to all the different things he might be referring to. If I talk about Oracle's subtle changes to layers of abstraction, you can read the sentence and decide whether that describes Oracle well or not. If I talk about "a widely installed piece of process management software" doing that, everything else I say is just a riddle trying to figure out which one.
I think thats part of the point. It makes his statement conversationally non-falsifiable because if I say something about (taking a guess here) systemd, that will say more about my own biases than what I am responding to.
My attention span is long enough to read and understand what was written here,but that's beyond the point. Long, multipart sentences are hard to read in general. This isn't my own anecdotal data point: most newspaper or book editors would have similar guidelines. Whether someone decides to usesuch rules, is up to them.
Clear and simple language wins. Stilted language alienates. FDR simplified speeches to make the language more accessible. For example, he rewrote “we want a more inclusive society,” to “we want a society in which nobody is left out.”
