The only thing that may suffer long term "sustainability" are the settings...not the raw image data–which was the whole point of this friggin' debate. What you are still failing to grasp is the long term conservation and preservation of the RAW IMAGE DATA is at risk. As you've already said, you don't even want people to see your raw images...but plenty of areas of photography do need access to the original raw data which DNG facilitates...and here's the irony, over time, the original raw image data has improved with new raw image processors–which is something totally new for photography...film didn't get better with age, but raw image data can as algorithms are improved.
You keep circling the drain bud, but you ain't winning many converts (and I don't count Vlad as a convert, he's just a pain, although he knows far more about the subject that you do, prolly more than I do too).
Look...you pointed to the museums. They want (need?) the raw original data, as well as intermediate works and the final output.
DNG or any other open RAW standard would be nice....and hopefully we will get that some day....but as your comments on Phase One, Canon, and Nikon, etc. are best worked "from within", not in a forum.
You only put your "finished" works in DNG format. You have faith that Adobe will continue to support ACR/LR so that you can go back and work these in the future. I submit, that there is a greater chance of the Adobe support disappearing sometime in the future than we have of the ability to "decode" the proprietary RAW formats we have today. Only Adobe supports ACR; many are decoding RAW. Could all this knowledge be lost...maybe, but not likely.
You keep bringing up Kodak. How many concerns were able or bothered to decode those RAW formats. How many are working with today's formats (no, Jeff...I am not fishing for and answer...rhetorical, you know).
I submit, if it were worth their while, Dave Coffman or Eric Chan could work the Kodak code. Photodisk...I don't know if that is a media problem, which I suspect, or a codex, or both.
As far as showing people my RAW images, I do it all the time when reviewing with friends and camera clubs when discussing processing methods (and I have no fear that a museum curator will "need" access to them either). However, I only "show"...i.e. print, post, email...finished works. We all have a visualization of our finished work. Adams did not display his negatives...his final image needed work to pull out what he saw when he shot the image. David DuChemin, Guy Tal...and, I am sure, you work the same way. You are rather small to turn an obvious statement that I made in an attempt to demean me.
I am overjoyed with the work of Adobe, specifically Eric Chan, to improve RAW conversion...and I go back to my old RAW originals to see if I can improve selected ones, or do something with the ones I was just not able to get the way I wanted them.
I am not trying to convert you. I am just providing an alternative view. Your chicken little act may have some validity. The validity however is that it would be easier with an open standard (which I agree to), but the sky is not falling.