TVheadend is a very light program so can be slotted into just about anything that runs Linux without killing performance.
@JohnBoyz Look up openATV tvheadend. You can run a tvehadend server directly from those enigma2 boxes
https://www.opena.tv/howtos/54519-installation-tvheadend-server-auf-einer-enigma2-box.html
I saw that itās possible to install tvheadend on an enigma2 receiver (though itās not always successful) but your link goes to a blank page.
@JohnBoyz I see that your zgemma has just 100Mbps ethernet, is that enough? If so, there are a couple of dirt cheap (~50ā¬) enigma2 receivers with 100Mbps, if I want gigabit then the price goes to ~120ā¬.
In any case itās kind of sad that to receive satellite tv you have to resort to those systems (i.e. either SAT>IP servers with propietary firmware or enigma2 boxes with a linux plagued by binary only drivers and executables).
I did not have good results when trying tvheadend server on the Zgemma boxes. I did try though but met with difficulties.
I found that having a separate server device has been rock steady for me for the past few years, regardless which tuners I used ā¦ and at one point I used a couple of ā¬8 DVB-T tuners plugged in to the server device.
That is my experience ā¦ not saying it is universal, and the TVH server might well work for you on the Zgemma device.
Regarding the 100Mb/s network connection ā¦ in my experience it is more than sufficient to serve full HD and even a couple of UHD channels to 5 clients watching different TV channels. Both the tuners and the TVH server are 100Mb/s
I use a wired LAN so if using wifi your experience might be different.
What I find sad is that it is not, apparently, commercially viable for anyone to produce a low powered device running FOSS software that would do all the things my combination of devices does.
Whether that was Enigma based or JeOS based would not matter - once it did it all and allowed the user to change the OS and software then it would suit most users ā¦ both the āplug and playā users and those who wished to tweak it to suit their use case.
I also have several broken Mecools on the board that do not work and yesterday I broke the X96 Max 2 plus, it does not turn on, it does not detect the usb burning tool. Garbage from devices that put a good hardware label on them but garbage components not manufactured well, it seems that the smaller they are manufactured, their quality is much worse. In the matter of the deco enigma relation quality-price-support I give my positive vote to the Octagon SF8008, 1GB of Ram memory, 1000M Lan, it does not heat up, the CEE HDMI control works well with the openspa image, in short I think it is better , with less Ram I have another from the Qviart brand and it is worse.
Iām undecided between a cheap enigma2 box (james donkey or axas his twin) to deploy as an headless server coupled with a tvbox or go with an all in one solution (like the octagon sf8008 you suggest or the uclan ustym 4k pro).
The total cost would be more or less the same, the fist option would be more flexible but I fear it will break in a few years time, the second should last longer but Iām not really sure.
Decisions, decisionsā¦ 
A ārealā SAT>IP sever is too expensive for what it offers (the digibit twin is cheap enough but it cannot do what I need it to do) and Iād have to rely on unofficial firmware, so thatās out of the question.
What Iād really like would be something like what I already had (a tv box with dvb-s2 tuner that works with coreelec) so Iād just plug the usb boot drive I used in the KI pro and be done with it, alas thatās impossible right now.
Yes, that is what is currently missing. And this is the reason I am still staying with my Wetek Play2 and CoreELEC 9.2.8 for now. I am still undecided for my next generation box setup, but I am considering going back to a Rasberry PI and LibreELEC and an USB DVB tuner. As far as I understand it, the mainline kernel they are using, still supports USB DVB tuners.
I just read in a forum that tvheadend doesnāt work in these boxes 
Strange, because, even if the drivers are binary blobs, I thought they presented a standard linux-dvb interface to userspace.
I wrote to telestar and they categorically say that I cannot install an alternative server in the digibit twin. @Shoog I think you have a digibit twin, is it really impossible to get console access and see what makes it tick?
I cannot see any advantage in going that path. The Digibit Twin is a mostly standard SAT > IP server, a stand alone unit. TVheadend is designed to detect any SAT > IP server on the network and present it as a standard tuner in your config screen of TVheadend.
So an absolutely minimalist install would be
- Digitbit Twin SAT > IP Server
- Standard Android box running Kodi front end for your TV with TVHeadend client, and the TVheadend server to supply your DVB feed from your Digibit Twin.
Two boxes couldnāt be simpler and I doubt this would be any more expensive than an Android box with propitiatory USB tuners attached.
However as I said before I would go with a three box solution:
-Digibit Twin for SAT > IP server
-Android or X86 box running Debian providing TVHeadend server duty from your Digibit Twin (along with every other media server duty you care to pack into it - such as OpenMediaVault to store all your movies, tv programs, recordings and music)
-Android box running basic front end client running CE to drive your box via TVHeadend client.
Two or three box solution, couldnāt be simpler and absolutely no need to mess with the Digibit Twin firmware for some unreliable piece of crap open source alternative supported by some nerd in his mothers basement.
Shoog
Considering that most software that coreelec is using (or even coreelec itself) is ācrap open source alternative supported by some nerd in his mothers basementā I find that quite offensive.
And while I hear your suggestion, you didnāt really answer my question: is it possible or not to get console access to the digibit twin?
I said Iām getting old, but not that old , I still like to bend things to do what they were not intented to do 
and Iād be happy if I could get one box do the work of two or more.
The difference between CE and a hacked Digibit Firmware is the team size. CE has about a dozen active developers which makes it relatively robust. The demand for a hacked Firmware for the Digibit would be a few dozen users so there is only ever going to be one person doing active development - that makes for a very unstable and unreliable development cycle - and what do you actually get - nothing. Your still down to a minimal two box solution because a hacked Digibit Twin running a Tvheadend server will not be able to run your CE client. There is literally nothing to be gained by going down that path - NOTHING.
I have never heard of anyone doing it anyway so its a mute point.
Shoog
OK, but can you get console access or not? Thatās all Iām asking.
I have never tried but I imagine not. Update images are signed which suggests a locked bootloader.
Shoog
Ok, I think that settles it then 
Lets also say that the Digibit Twin is one of the most reliable pieces of equipment I have owned, it sits there working 24-7 for years on end never missing a beat. I would hate to mess with something that dependable.
Shoog
Well, if it doesnāt do what I want it to do, it doesnāt really matter if itās reliable. The mecool has been working reliably 24/7 during 3 years too, until it broke.
There is no need for have ssh access. You can load a alternative firmware and have access but for what? TVH server will run but do not think about stream decrypt. The hw decrypted is closed source and canāt be used and for software itās not power full enough.
So itās useless to run any on this device, just use it what it is designed for.
Noted, thank you.
Interesting though that you can actually load an alternative firmware, but maybe youāre referring to the R1 and not the twin? A quick look at the alternative firmware for the R1 seems to imply itās using kernel 2.4 
and thatās what Iād call crap in 2021.
Its a significant mistake to imagine that a self contained piece of hardware running an ancient kernel is any worse than if it ran a modern kernel. Do we expect our washing machines (computers after all) to receive regular software updates just for the sake of it.
Propitiatory hardware running in a dedicated function that just works need never be upgraded and has no need to run the latest kernels.
Its a terrible way of thinking about basic utilities to expect them to be running the latest greatest software and why the fetish for Mainline support in our brother project (LIbreelec) has been so damaging to the user base.
Shoog
Itā not that I praise the use of the ālatest and shiny newā, far from it, but usually those who still use such an outdated kernel itās because are using a vendor provided toolchain that woks only thanks to craptacular patches and hacks. It doesnāt speak quality to me.