Before we burst into tears, because not all files have been converted in DNG, a few things have to be explained.
Note, that the issue is NOT if converting native raw files in DNG causes loss of raw data. Such claims came only from amateurs.
To the evaluation of "advantages" coming with DNG:
1. Embedded XMP tags.
Well, you may clasp for this, or you may whine about it. It may seem to be an advantage for some, it is a show stopper for others. I deem it as an idiotic idea to store the adjustment parameters (secondary, changable information) inside the original, primary information, which ought to be preserved absolutely unchanged.
2. Lossless compression.
I don't know if I am supposed to laugh or to whine when reading this rubbish. The raw data is lossless, if is has been created losslessly. However, the lossy raw data does not become lossless by virtue of converting it in DNG.
3. "Enormous support".
It is totally irrelevant for any user, how many cameras are supported by the software (s)he is using.
4. Some (in fact, all important) manufacturers are sticking to their proprietory format.
I have all understanding for them. The DNG format does not allow for any new features, it does not allow for honouring in-camera settings (contrast, saturation, style, color space selection, etc.), and most importantly, it does not allow for the best possible color representation.
This is a very difficult problem. On one hand, the DNG specification can not account for future features. On the other hand, manufacturers don't want to reveal their plans, nor do they want to delay their release, until the DNG specification gets updated.
For example the proprietory raw converters honour picture styles and dust delete data. If someone goes DNG, one can forget about that.
5. DNG is a standard.
Well, it is a standard of Adobe. I hope, that before it will be declared an official standard, some software architecs will be asked about it, because this did not happen until now.
Let's keep an important fact in eyes: camera owners are using DNG due to Lightroom, Bridge and mainly for the features of ACR, not for DNG. If Canon came out with a raw converter equipped comparable to ACR, photogs would make a run for it and forget about ACR.
(Please note: I am a proponent of a raw standard, something like DNG, but I am not blind.)