It's like...how many times do security researchers have to exploit your code (and your many "fixes") before you change your program's mounting architecture?
I read this bug report when I want to feel something.
That's more ignorance that arrogance. He fixed what he understood, and discussed what he did not understood till he found a satisfying solution.
Personally I wouldn't trust a dev who fixes stuff blindly which they don't understand. Though, in case of security this of course can have also bad outcomes, as illustrated in this case in the process. But that makes it even more important for everyone to follow through and communicate clearly. Which did happen here at the end.
Maybe time to let it go?
Unless there are more recent examples to point to. Or the problem still is not fixed.
I remember installing calibre once, because I needed to open an .epub file I had. Upon opening it, it started to "classify" stuff and build a sort of catalog, to which I kill -9'd it immediately and uninstalled it for good measure. But mounting filesystems is way, way worse than anything I imagined it was about to do!
You really can't blame a program to do what it says to do.
It can manage eBook readers' libraries either natively or via plugins. It can work with my Kobo eReader for example. I use Calibre to convert standard epubs to kepub (kobo enhanced epub) and push to device and extract highlights from books mainly. It's also a very nice ebook library so I can search and push/read/modify what I want.
It's more justified to call it an IDE for Ebooks.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."