i've been in linux for decades and listen to multiple linux podcasts every week and follow multiple linux communities. valve, proton, lutris, wine, all of these things are mentioned constantly. codeweavers is mentioned almost never. it definitely isn't living under a rock to not be familiar with codeweavers. i would go so far as to say that most people who use wine have never heard of codeweavers.

I think you may be misunderstanding me to say that I was unaware that codeweavers existed, but that wasn't the issue. The issue at hand is whether "bottles" ripped that terminology from codeweavers. I have been plenty aware of codeweavers existence, but that doesn't mean I had any reason to believe they were the originators of using "bottles" to mean what it means today. What my previous comment intended to say, was that I had no idea codeweavers coined the term "bottles" and I don't know that it's fair to assume "bottles" assumed it was something exclusive to codeweavers.

Why would anyone assume that was some pseudo-trademark of codeweavers? It's not particularly clever and anyone could come up with it. I would've assumed literally anyone in the wine ecosystem could've come up with it and given codeweavers (nor anyone else) did not file for a trademark then that suggests they don't care that it was "ripped" from them to begin with.

My whole point of view is that there seems to be some assumption of malice or feelings slighted where there's no evidence that codeweavers feels slighted or that bottles was being malicious. I generally think the internet would be a much better place without assumptions of malice.

I mean, it's a bit obvious,no? Invent seems like a strong word.