Subj : Re: Comparison of BBS Software
To   : halcy0n
From : g00r00
Date : Thu Feb 07 2019 20:56:27

 ha> manipulate it not in a terminal environment. Out of the two I would say
 ha> Mystic is the modern interpretation of the way BBS's "used to be", while
 ha> Synchronet adds a lot more features outside the board itself. 

I think thats pretty accurate.  Mystic uses much of the same protocols as
Synchronet but has very different design decisions in how they're used. It
tries to "feel" like an old DOS BBS and I think it does well at capturing that.

Synchronet and Mystic are salt and pepper and I think thats a good thing. There
are also a lot of things each one does that the other doesn't. Most of Mystic's
are on the BBS side and most of Synchronet's are on the outside, like you said.
Some are even intentional (Mystic uses Python because Sync uses JavaScript)

Mystic specifically tries to not do things that act as a deterrent from using
the actual terminal BBS, and focuses on the BBS aspect more than anything else.
The idea is that you're not really using a BBS if you're using every other way
except the BBS itself to access it.

(Just some examples)

Synchronet has a web server that allows you to read/post messages instead of
logging into the BBS.  Mystic has a webserver too, but its point is to allow
you host a small site about your BBS and/or a web-based telnet client to your
BBS. And to single sign on to the web to download files you've tagged while on
the BBS.

Synchronet allows you to forward message bases by getting it sent to e-mail
mailing lists, etc.  Mystic uses e-mail too, but to allow things like password
resets, account validation, or to push BBS private messages to your phone, etc.

Some people they like my BBS-centric approach, others don't.  It usually comes
down to whether or not they really want to use a BBS or just access a website
or e-mail that has BBS content.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/02/06 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Sector 7 (46:1/127)

.