If you installed linux in a network that didn't typically have linux machines, and then had no accountability to what was running on said machine... yes, that would be suspicious and of note.

My point isn't that it couldn't be of note, but rather that - even when relevant - the phrasing makes for a strange-sounding definition to people already familiar with containers/Linux in a general context (and people who weren't familiar with containers/Linux might come away with that lopsided impression of them, even while having an accurate impression of how they were relevant to the article).

I think it could potentially be improved with a more general/typical definition first ("Containers are self-contained environments that bundle all dependencies a piece of software needs to run and are commonly used to streamline deployment across different machines, but can also ...")

And this guys how you get $200 per hour consultant say "I'm on my 15th sprint, still trying to figure out how to transform a CSV using powershell. Maybe next week it will be done."

It's only odd for people in the middle segment of "just smart enough to understand why you want containers, not experienced enough to understand how they work"

We use them for standardization and scaling exactly because they are opaque. I personally believe the explanation shows a deep understanding of the technology, but also a good grasp of what matters politically.

That's because the explanation isn't for you. It's for people who don't understand why a mysterious new container is an issue in a secure system.