As you might know, the key pieces of the Outernet receiver software (called ondd and sdr100) are closed-source and distributed as binary only. I have reverse engineered most of the Outernet protocols and I have published a Free Software (open-source) receiver software to substitute these pieces of closed-source software.
It hasnât being tested yet, but thereâs no reason why it shouldnât work with the Outernet hardware (which uses a single board linux computer such as the Raspberry Pi 3 or the CHIP). gr-outernet needs GNUradio, so you need to install GNUradio into your device (this is possible). free-outernet is just a python3 script. python3 comes preinstalled with most linux distribution and probably itâs also included in the Outernet rxOS distribution.
I think Outernet has done an amazing Job in getting the L-Band Library to where we are today.
But we need more than that, to be a mega success. We need a strong community that builds on what Outernet has created. (Think Raspberry Pi)
What Daniel has done with his version of Open Source Outernet decoder is exactly what we need. It builds on what is already created and substantially adds to the scientific-research and experimentation that we will need to Take the Outernet to the next level.
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 - âWish I had thought of it!â BTW, I think itâs 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 âunder the hoodâ. 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.
i do not think the same . . . . . the focus is comercial, not "give âInternetâ access limited environments " , why still using âinternetâ when talk about outernet . . . . . . . its unidirectional not bidirectional . . . .
outernet ist a private filecast of content which castling on free licenses where the user community almost does not participate with own content but copy paste some of the Internet . . . . . .
no more educational content, or agro content that was one that attract attention in remote areas in Colombia, and no more twits, no wiki . . . . .
the social perception of this outernet project its distorted and overrated(or ask some Indiegogo supporter) and the Ham radio community that not showing activity during Ku band agec. . . . .
this is what I think, hopefully outernet do not hate me
