I wholeheartedly agree with Seasalt. A few points from my perspective.
1- The Outernet Team are doing a great job. Much to admire and support. And, they are engaged with the users. IMO, they offer a very useful tool, especially for those in Internet access limited environments - “Wish I had thought of it!” BTW, I think it’s fun to use.
2- It would not surprise me if the majority of the end users embrace the rxOS platform and Librarian interface. For me, the combined platform works well and is easy to use. I have also found that the Outernet platform provides entree to a new RX band, new hardware (patch antenna, CHIP computer) and the use of an embedded OS. Lots to learn, understand and enjoy. I like learning about the CHIP. Very cool choice.
3 - Those of us who are more adventuresome and perhaps more technically inclined often hunger for a more in depth understanding of what is going on “under the hood”. Great problem to have.
2- There is always room for improvement. One way is to foster an environment where users can share ideas, hacks, and new ways of understanding the process and yes, even alternative ways of gathering and manipulating Outernet content. This is what Dani has done. IMO, this is very healthy and should serve to encourage further improvements of the Outernet platform, by both the project team and those beyond the internal team who are able to so when possible. So, congratulations to Dani for offering an alternative while clearly furthering our collective understanding of the data reception and de-convolution process. And for suggesting some possible improvements from which we all may benefit if they can be realized in future Outernet implementations.
Best to All,