I clearly misinterpreted your post to be negative respectively accusatory in nature - which you explained is not and on re-reading your post I see my mistake. I didn’t intend to accuse you of anything or offend you in any way either, but I clearly did - I am very sorry for that. I’ll try to respond now leaving out any judgement (and definitely without anything personal, I never intended it to be).
Because someone out there might have a use-case we collectively can’t imagine, and then it’s nice to know that the creator is open to collaboration.
It’s still a good thing though. And increasingly more accepted. At least I perceive it as such. A decade ago I was looked at bewildered when I explained that I am using it, last year I got an odf file sent to me and a whole lot of other people - from a very non-technical person (meaning likely no bubble-effect there ).
Maybe DNG has resoundingly failed and isn’t just slow on adoption - I haven’t heard that though (admittedly not particularly involved either).
One contrived possibility (though again, the maybe-never-to-appear linux user will have a real one):
An adobe (not linux) user manages to convince a linux-using friend of the benefits of shooting RAW. They don’t know any linux tools, but this tool is close enough to adobe ones, that they can teach the linux friend how to use it.
It’s not about whether that’s a good use-case, sure that person would be better off with DT or RT, but it might be useful anyway.
I can only once again offer my apologies for the accusatory answer I directed at you. I do not believe that you are any kind of open-source vigilante. I do see and appreciate that you are a long-standing open-source proponent and thank you for that!