Board: [fsxNet] Mystic BBS discussion/support Subject: Re: Redoing Mystic From: Gamgee(21:2/138) Date: Fri Aug 21, 2026 12:33 -=> Accession wrote to Gamgee <=- > Okay, yes, that's probably the correct thing(s) that happened. I guess > that would indeed be pretty irritating. Ac> Yeah, and that's basically what it was. He was so irritated/frustrated Ac> by it all he just went back to closed source, and most of those issues Ac> went away. Ac> Granted, I agree with others, that if he's going to finally abandon it, Ac> he should just let it go so others can at least try to preserve it. > Yes, all good points. I didn't mean to sound like I think only SBBS > should be run. Not at all. Definitely agree that stock is > not appealing. Ac> I am impressed that quite a few newer BBS softwares have come about Ac> somewhat recently, however it seems once they're at a usable point in Ac> the progress, and only a couple people actually start using it, the Ac> developers seem to get bored and disappear, or just stop working on it. Ac> *shrug* > So do I, for sure. I think what I was thinking, that didn't come out > sounding right, was... There aren't too many *MODERN* BBS softwares out > there, that support telnet/SSH/etc.. easily, so if one wanted to run > modern software, it seems (to me) that they'd want to run one that was > updated often and kept improving. If that isn't a prime factor for a > person, then run a classic/old/DOS software which obviously isn't gonna > get updates because it's not being maintained. I think I'm still not > explaining it well, but hopefully you get what I mean. ;-) Ac> I get what you're saying, and Mystic definitely was in the category of Ac> being updated often and constantly improving (I did quite a bit of bug Ac> testing and feature requests during these times - and still have it Ac> setup and fully modded in it's own VM in case he does come back again), Ac> up until 05/2024 which was the latest alpha. It gained quite a few Ac> followers when he came back and really started digging back into it Ac> (there was a huge hiatus between v1.07.3 and the 1.10 alphas (like a Ac> decade or more), then probably one or two more smaller down times (year Ac> or less) between 1.10 and 1.12, and now this one the last couple Ac> years). During one of those downtimes is when I switched to Synchronet, Ac> and when he came back the last time around, I fired Mystic back up as a Ac> secondary BBS on a non-standard port to continue testing. From that Ac> point on I had a feeling he would disappear again at some point, so I Ac> wasn't about to drop all the work I did on my Synchronet BBS. Ac> I imagine it's probably more frustrating to the people that were a part Ac> of the experience when he was around, now that he's not (again, I was Ac> one of them. As much as I didn't want to, I kind of predicted and Ac> prepared for what may or may not happen) - rather than the people just Ac> starting to use it now, knowing he's been gone for 2+ years already. If Ac> he decides to come back around, I would fire it all back up and Ac> continue to help where I can. I imagine he'd look into and squash all Ac> the known bugs, as well as cram a bunch more features into it in Ac> usually a small amount of time, then take another break. But, if he Ac> doesn't... that's ultimately his choice. *shrug* Ac> I think it's by far the best menu editor driven (with it's own Ac> programming language, as well as python support possibly even Ac> integrated into it's programming language as an added bonus - although Ac> I've never needed either of these as I hadn't found anything that Ac> /can't/ be done with the menu editor itself) BBS software out there. If Ac> there is a few bugs currently, I don't think they are show-stoppers or Ac> make things un-runnable at this point in time. Ac> Phew. That's the most I've written in awhile. :D LOL, and it's good stuff. Thanks for the insights, and the effort. :-) .... All the easy problems have been solved. === MultiMail/Linux v0.52 --- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138) .