Greetings all,
We're currently working on building a bbs for use by a local community and was hoping y'all could give me a little rundown of different bbs softwares to run, e.g., magicka, mytic, enigma, and their particular strengths and weaknesses.

It's likely that most of our users will have no prior experience with bbses.

Is it possible to add sound or music on any bbs softwares?

Maybe should be asking more directed questions but let me know what y'all think

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A39 2018/04/21 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Black Flag <ACiD Telnet HQ> blackflagbbs.com (46:1/104)

and was hoping y'all could give me a little rundown of different bbs softwares to run, e.g., magicka, mytic, enigma, and their particular strengths and weaknesses.

It's likely that most of our users will have no prior experience with bbses.

I'm sure everyone will have their own opinions, so just take mine with a
grain of salt. Just my general opinions:

Mystic & Synchronet are the two most common terminal based softwares that are the most modern, updated and current (as far as I can tell). That being said, they're also the most modern as far as user interface, and usability goes for
a "new user", ie: someone who has never used one before. Synchronet in particular has a lot of ways to connect and manipulate it not in a terminal environment. Out of the two I would say Mystic is the modern interpretation
of the way BBS's "used to be", while Synchronet adds a lot more features outside the board itself.

Enigma is similar to Mystic, but is much newer and still under constant development.

It depends a lot on what type of experience you want. Do you want it to be
like it was back in the hay-day, or do you want it to be BBSing in 2019?
That's kind of the difference between most of them now.

I also wouldn't look too much into sound/music on a board, as that isn't
really too common. But something like Searchlight or other non-ansi based software would be something you would look into for that.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A39 2018/04/21 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Black Flag <ACiD Telnet HQ> blackflagbbs.com (46:1/104)

manipulate it not in a terminal environment. Out of the two I would say Mystic is the modern interpretation of the way BBS's "used to be", while 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)

Re: Re: Comparison of BBS Software
By: g00r00 to halcy0n on Thu Feb 07 2019 08:56 pm

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

There seems to be multiple ways one could define "the BBS". With Synchronet, you can log into the web interface, and at least for posting messages, you are still logging onto the BBS, just with the web interface rather than the text interface. I tend to see the other protocols (web, FTP, NNTP, etc.) simply as other ways to access the BBS rather than being outside of the BBS. Whether you connect via web, FTP, NNTP, etc., you're still connecting to the BBS in some form (i.e., connecting via NNTP is one way to read and post messages). I do tend to prefer the text interface, because that's how BBSes traditionally were accessed, but the other protocols allow connections that are typically used in the modern internet age.

I do appreciate that there is other software available that takes a different approach. It certainly makes things more interesting.

Nightfox

Re: Comparison of BBS Software
By: halcy0n to Gorath on Thu Feb 07 2019 06:01 pm

I also wouldn't look too much into sound/music on a board, as that isn't really too common. But something like Searchlight or other non-ansi based software would be something you would look into for that.

Synchronet supports RIP, and I think Searchlight was one of the other BBS programs that had early support for RIP too. As far as sound/music, I haven't seen any official standard for that in a BBS package or terminal (though I think there is an ANSI or ASCII code to make the PC speaker beep). I've heard of some specialized BBS door clients that add graphics and/or sound, such as with Operation Overkill II (sound) and Land of Devastation (which adds EGA/VGA graphics on the client and perhaps sound too).

Nightfox