I have been playing with Mystic for a while, if it's been a couple years... who
knows. I kinda liked it but I had issues, some I never could fix and I just had to live with it. I recently upgraded to the latest version.... I had ignored a few updates... update process not simple... More issues came from doing so... and I could not resolve those issues.... Until a week or so ago...
I started using my installed version of Synchronet... Fixed all my Mystic issues.
Good job fixing my issues Rob!!!
Haha. It's a very, fast, and effective solution to all your problems. Active developer, the source is open so you can submit bug fixes, you made the right choice.
I have been playing with Mystic for a while, if it's been a couple years... who knows. I kinda liked it but I had issues, some I never could fix and I just had to live with it. I recently upgraded to the latest version.... I had ignored a few updates... update process not simple... More issues came from doing so... and I could not resolve those issues.... Until a week or so ago...
I started using my installed version of Synchronet... Fixed all my Mystic issues.
Good job fixing my issues Rob!!!
I started using my installed version of Synchronet... Fixed all my Mystic issues.
Good job fixing my issues Rob!!!
You're saying the solution to your Mystic issues was to switch to Synchronet? :P
with my background i supposed i'm the kind of guy that should like mystic. i just didnt like it at all. i'd rather use an older bbs software or something else that is being actively maintained.
it still doesnt even have a fossil driver.
it still doesnt even have a fossil driver.
Re: Mystic
By: MRO to Nightfox on Mon Sep 10 2018 10:52 pm
with my background i supposed i'm the kind of guy that should like mystic.
i just didnt like it at all. i'd rather use an older bbs software or
something else that is being actively maintained.
Isn't Mystic being actively maintained? I've seen discussions of Mystic development on AgoraNet with the developer (g00r00) fairly active. It seems he
comes and goes sometimes, but I've seen development activity on it relatively
recently (in the last year or two or so).
it (Mystic) is not supposed to have a FOSSIL driver in the first place ;)
On 09-11-18 09:53, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Isn't Mystic being actively maintained? I've seen discussions of
Mystic development on AgoraNet with the developer (g00r00) fairly
active. It seems he comes and goes sometimes, but I've seen
development activity on it relatively recently (in the last year or two
or so).
it still doesnt even have a fossil driver.
I'm wondering if Synchronet is the only one that has a built-in FOSSIL driver. Even if it doesn't, you can use something like NetFoss, so I'm
not sure that's a deal-breaker.
since there are FOSSIL drivers that could be used. I know of WinFoss for Windows, but I'm not sure what may be available for Linux and other OSes.
I started using my installed version of Synchronet... Fixed all my Mystic issues.Been there, same end result.
Good job fixing my issues Rob!!!
it (Mystic) is not supposed to have a FOSSIL driver in the first
place ;)
Why is it "not supposed to"?
Synchronet has a built-in FOSSIL driver,
so it seems to me like Mystic could..
I'm not sure it's a big deal though, since there are FOSSIL drivers
that could be used. I know of WinFoss for Windows, but I'm not sure
what may be available for Linux and other OSes.
since there are FOSSIL drivers that could be used. I know of WinFoss
for Windows, but I'm not sure what may be available for Linux and
other OSes.
By WinFoss, I meant NetFoss..
since there are FOSSIL drivers that could be used. I know of WinFoss
for Windows, but I'm not sure what may be available for Linux and
other OSes.
By WinFoss, I meant NetFoss..
i kinda figured that... winfoss is long dead and gone...
it (Mystic) is not supposed to have a FOSSIL driver in the first
place ;)
Why is it "not supposed to"?
because it is not designed to provide or need one for its operation...
you don't need FOSSILs for linux... ports/sockets are just another file you open and write to... any FOSSIL used on linux is used in DOSEMU or similar... granted, a FOSSIL could be created for linux that does just open the port and write as needed... the only real purpose of said FOSSIL would be to ease porting a FOSSIL using package between winwhatever, linux, OS/2 and DOS... "ease porting" meaning providing the same interrupt calls so one doesn't need a bunch of "IFDEF/ENDDEF" code blocks to separate code for each OS...
By WinFoss, I meant NetFoss..
i kinda figured that... winfoss is long dead and gone...
since there are FOSSIL drivers that could be used. I know of
WinFoss for Windows, but I'm not sure what may be available for
Linux and other OSes.
By WinFoss, I meant NetFoss..
i kinda figured that... winfoss is long dead and gone...
why should linux need it ?
Re: Mystic
By: Benny Pedersen to mark lewis on Wed Sep 12 2018 03:53 pm
since there are FOSSIL drivers that could be used. I know of
WinFoss for Windows, but I'm not sure what may be available for
Linux and other OSes.
By WinFoss, I meant NetFoss..
i kinda figured that... winfoss is long dead and gone...
why should linux need it ?
As someone pointed out, Linux doesn't need a FOSSIL driver.. Though Synchronet has a FOSSIL driver built in - I wonder if that's only for Windows though. I haven't done much with Synchronet on Linux, so I'm not sure if Synchronet excludes its FOSSIL driver when building its Linux binaries.
with my background i supposed i'm the kind of guy that should like mystic. i just didnt like it at all. i'd rather use an older bbs software or something else that is being actively maintained.
Isn't Mystic being actively maintained? I've seen discussions of Mystic development on AgoraNet with the developer (g00r00) fairly active. It seems he comes and goes sometimes, but I've seen development activity on it
On 2018 Sep 10 22:52:40, you wrote to Nightfox:
it still doesnt even have a fossil driver.
it (Mystic) is not supposed to have a FOSSIL driver in the first place ;)
driver. Even if it doesn't, you can use something like NetFoss, so I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker.
I'm not aware of any other than Synchronet with a built in FOSSIL, and as you say, there are suitable FOSSILs around.
Why is it "not supposed to"?
because it is not designed to provide or need one for its operation...
so it seems to me like Mystic could..
sure, it could... but it doesn't...
at this point in time, some few remaining/working old-school BBSes need a FOSSIL...
Re: Mystic
By: mark lewis to Nightfox on Wed Sep 12 2018 08:18 am
By WinFoss, I meant NetFoss..
i kinda figured that... winfoss is long dead and gone...
Ah.. I didn't even know WinFoss was a real thing. That was mainly a typo on my part.
Re: Mystic
By: mark lewis to Nightfox on Wed Sep 12 2018 08:11 am
it (Mystic) is not supposed to have a FOSSIL driver in the first
place ;)
Why is it "not supposed to"?
because it is not designed to provide or need one for its operation..
I guess no modern BBS software "needs" one, but it's pretty much a necessity if you plan on running DOS doors (which many sysops want to
do) on a Windows system. If the BBS software doesn't provide one,
you'll need to use something like NetFoss.
FOSSIL drivers (because of the nature of the FOSSIL int 14h interface) must run in an 8086 "real mode". In today's multi-tasking x86 systems, this is achieved either through 80386 "virtual 8086" mode (as used by the Windows NTVDM) or through pure software virtualization (e.g. Linux DOSEMU). The 16-bit "half" of the Synchronet Windows FOSSIL driver (dosxtrn.exe) must run in a 16-bit DOS environment. Linux itself does not provide this environment, Linux DOSEMU will intercept I/O access to traditional COM/UART ports, so you can run a traditional (16-bit DOS) FOSSIL driver (e.g. bnu, x00) inside Linux DOSEMU (you don't need Synchronet's dosxtrn.exe) and then FOSSIL-dependent software on top of that. None of this requires the native BBS software (e.g. Synchronet) to do anything special.
even though i'm a renegade, RA, iniquitybbs guy from way back, mysticbbs isnt for me.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Download netfoss and follow the instructions and mystic will run most any 16 or 32 bit door. I see no need for g00r00 to code a built in fossil driver, there are much more productive things for him to devote his limited time to.
You're saying the solution to your Mystic issues was to switch to Synchronet? :P
Nightfox
Good job fixing my issues Rob!!!Been there, same end result.
It is always the same end result.
:)
As someone pointed out, Linux doesn't need a FOSSIL driver.. Though Synchronet has a FOSSIL driver built in - I wonder if that's only forWindows
though. I haven't done much with Synchronet on Linux, so I'm not sure if Synchronet excludes its FOSSIL driver when building its Linux binaries.
Re: Mystic
By: MRO to Nightfox on Wed Sep 12 2018 04:36 pm
even though i'm a renegade, RA, iniquitybbs guy from way back, mysticbbs
isnt for me.
I ran RA in the 90s. Before I chose Synchronet, I was initially setting up my
new BBS with EleBBS, since it's a clone of RA, but I ran into an issue where it
didn't seem to be able to run events like I expected. I thought it may be a bug, so I ended up looking for other BBS software and chose Synchronet. I suppose I'm glad I did, since Synchronet is fairly regularly maintained and updated, but I'm not sure EleBBS has been updated in years.
Re: Mystic
By: Zombie Mambo to Ib Joe on Tue Sep 11 2018 06:45 pm
Good job fixing my issues Rob!!!
Been there, same end result.
It is always the same end result.
:)
rob's been fixing Mystic errors for some time now...
On 09-12-18 16:38, MRO wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Re: Re: Mystic
By: Tony Langdon to Nightfox on Wed Sep 12 2018 11:26 am
driver. Even if it doesn't, you can use something like NetFoss, so I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker.
I'm not aware of any other than Synchronet with a built in FOSSIL, and as you say, there are suitable FOSSILs around.
but why do you have to do this work around? why cant it have its own fossil driver.
A lot of people look at the major numbers of software but really the current is a continuous release with pretty quick bugfixes by DM. That's one of the reasons I stuck with it. It was refreshing to not only get help, but get a fix that didn't have to wait for a release or anything like that.
rob's been fixing Mystic errors for some time now...
Imagine a big "Like" button has been pressed.... :)
I'm not sure what the problem is. Download netfoss and follow the instructions and mystic will run most any 16 or 32 bit door. I see no need for g00r00 to code a built in fossil driver, there are much more
productive things for him to devote his limited time to.
but why do you have to do this work around? why cant it have its own fossil driver.
Irrelevant to me, as I don't run any DOS doors, just a couple of native MPLs on Mystic. Only need a FOSSIL for DOS doors these days.
On 09-13-18 09:24, Nightfox wrote to Nelgin <=-
Yeah, I like that DM fixes bugs fairly quickly. And for a while I
wanted to stick with only the major official releases, because
sometimes the development builds can have bugs and issues, but most of
the time bugs are fixed fairly quickly and the development builds are usually fairly stable. Also, I think DM has added some interesting features in the 3.17 dev builds, such as message voting (and polls) and avatar support.
On 09-13-18 09:26, Nightfox wrote to Nelgin <=-
You can upvote messages now with Synchronet 3.17. :)
why just not say he lacks the ability to write a fossil driver?
with my background i supposed i'm the kind of guy that should like mystic. i just didnt like it at all. i'd rather use an older bbs software or something else that is being actively maintained.
with my background i supposed i'm the kind of guy that should like mystic. i just didnt like it at all. i'd rather use an older bbs software or something else that is being actively maintained.
As for voting/polls and avatars, I've never used either feature, they don't fit the way I use BBSs. :)
You can upvote messages now with Synchronet 3.17. :)
Not in an offline reader. ;)
I'm not sure what the problem is. Download netfoss and follow the
instructions and mystic will run most any 16 or 32 bit door. I see no
need for g00r00 to code a built in fossil driver, there are much more
productive things for him to devote his limited time to.
that's another strange answer.
why just not say he lacks the ability to write a fossil driver?
I loved the mystic message base setup way more than synchronet, heck synchronet doesn't even have a moddable built in FSE.
On 2018 Sep 13 16:54:22, you wrote to Immortal:
why just not say he lacks the ability to write a fossil driver?
don't be a dick...
Re: Mystic
By: MRO to Nightfox on Mon Sep 10 2018 10:52 pm
with my background i supposed i'm the kind of guy that should like mystic. i just didnt like it at all. i'd rather use an older bbs software or something else that is being actively maintained.
I loved the mystic message base setup way more than synchronet, heck synchronet doesn't even have a moddable built in FSE. however, synchronet has been more stable and I never have a problem running doors on this setup where as Mystic I have had numerous door crashes if they would even load at all.
that's another strange answer.
why just not say he lacks the ability to write a fossil driver?
I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying he lacks the ability.. Maybe he really is just not interested in doing it.
On 09-13-18 17:35, Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Re: Re: Mystic
By: Tony Langdon to Nightfox on Fri Sep 14 2018 08:02 am
As for voting/polls and avatars, I've never used either feature, they don't fit the way I use BBSs. :)
Those are fairly new features to BBSing as a whole, which I hadn't seen
on any BBS before, so I don't think it really fits the way anyone use BBSes. People just aren't used to seeing those features on a BBS. In
a way I think they make sense though, since there are many online
forums these days that offer those. Since Synchronet has a message
base, I think it makes sense to be able to match some of the features
of other online forums.
On 09-13-18 17:36, Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Re: Re: Mystic
By: Tony Langdon to Nightfox on Fri Sep 14 2018 08:03 am
You can upvote messages now with Synchronet 3.17. :)
Not in an offline reader. ;)
True.. :) I wonder if an offline reader could be updated to support that, though I don't think there is a standard for general message up/downvoting that could be implemented for any BBS..
On 09-13-18 17:43, Nightfox wrote to Dribble <=-
Although its message editor is cool, I'm not sure it's so important to have a FSE built in when you can install one as a door. And you (as
the sysop) or some of your users may prefer a different editor anyway.
I like to provide several options for editors (and other things) so my users can choose what they like most.
Yeah, I agree, these features should be supported, just have to implement them widely. Offline readers is one limitation, as is FTN networking. But I don't see these as insurmountable, mainly (1) convincing the various developers, and (2) time. :)
On 09-14-18 09:46, Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I'm wondering if FTN would technically support it already. I believe
it's just done with messages containing special data for Synchronet to know it's a poll or a vote response, and FTN just transfers the
messages from one system to the other..
On 09-14-18 09:46, Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I'm wondering if FTN would technically support it already. I believe it's just done with messages containing special data for Synchronet to know it's a poll or a vote response, and FTN just transfers the messages from one system to the other..
DM would be the one to speak to on that. I don't believe voting/poll data is currently sent over FTN, but would be interesting if it could be.
On 09-15-18 22:09, Digital Man wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Votes/polls are not exported to Fido-style networks (by SBBSecho)
because there is no FTN standard for it. For QWK (QWK networking), I extended the defacto standard to support it, but doing the same in the Fido world is not taken to kindly. Way back when (say, in the early
90's) FidoNet was very open to enhancements and improvements to the pre-existing methods of doing things, but it hasn't been that way now
for a long time (interoperability with 30 year old software and all).
On 09-15-18 22:09, Digital Man wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Votes/polls are not exported to Fido-style networks (by SBBSecho) because there is no FTN standard for it. For QWK (QWK networking), I extended the defacto standard to support it, but doing the same in the Fido world is not taken to kindly. Way back when (say, in the early 90's) FidoNet was very open to enhancements and improvements to the pre-existing methods of doing things, but it hasn't been that way now for a long time (interoperability with 30 year old software and all).
Yeah, that's what I thought. Maybe it's about time to define a de-facto standard and let the rest of the FTN world catch up? Perhaps the capability could also be turned on and off by Areafix commands (optionally, configured on a per-link basis)?
On 09-16-18 02:31, Digital Man wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
It's totally possible, but I don't really have any motivation to do
that today. Most Synchronet boards are linked together using QWK networking already, so they get the network-voting capability without
any need to try to shoe-horn it into FTN packets. If the author(s) of
any *other* BBS software wanted to coordinate on a polling/voting
scheme for FTN, I'd be inclined to participate and certainly add
support where needed to SBBSecho. But util such interest arises (for *other* BBS software or FTN tosser), I don't really see the
need/purpose for it in SBBSecho.
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus Mystic BBS?
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus Mystic BBS?
On 10-30-18 21:08, Ben Ritchey wrote to All <=-
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus
Mystic BBS?
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus Mystic BBS?
-- IMHO, Synchronet has been around longer and seems more robust (fewer issues), even if you are running the beta code
-- Open source, so you can poke your head under the hood and maybe
customize some things for yourself, if you are so inclined
-- DM seems to be more available and addresses issues more quickly
-- From my interactions with DM vs. the Mystic author, I feel DM is more helpful and less likely to become insulted/defensive if you question advice he gives (or if you don't understand it)
Pushes:
-- There is a loyal and helpful userbase for both systems
-- Depending on what you want your BBS to be, I am sure they are both quite capable
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus Mystic BBS?
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus
Mystic BBS?
They are simpy quite different BBS systems, buth capable in their own way. They are configured in quite ifferent ways too, so yes try both, see what you like.
On 10-31-18 23:51, Denn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I run both:)
I run Mystic on a PI3 and synchronet on a windows thinclient PC
I love both packages.
i have seen the author chew the head off of people for just making suggestions.
I run Mystic on a PI3 and synchronet on a windows thinclient PC
I love both packages.
On 10-30-18 21:08, Ben Ritchey wrote to All <=-
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus Mystic BBS?
They are simpy quite different BBS systems, buth capable in their own way. Use the one you like. I do find that Synchronet has stronger support for a wide variety of Internet protocols. Mystic has some nice features too.
They are configured in quite ifferent ways too, so yes try both, see what you like.
On 11-01-18 21:53, Plt wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Both Synchronet and Mystic can can be setup to handle small and a large systems.
-- Synchronet has a web interface -- IIRC, the mystic author seems to have no interest in implementing one
-- Synchronet can handle Internet email (SMTP/POP3), and internet listservs -- Synchronet has an NNTP server, and can natively port
From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet
To: Ben Ritchey
Re: Mystic
By: Ben Ritchey to All on Tue Oct 30 2018 09:08 pm
Can someone shout out some Pros and Cons to using Synchronet versus Mystic
BBS?
The most important thing is do and run what you like/enjoy..
A few points I like.. :)
Synchronet supports *.msg
You can ;get and ;put any file remotely from the transfer menu.
SMB is awesome!
Ttyl :-),
Al
.... Knock softly but firmly, I like soft, firm knockers.
---
â– Synchronet â– The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada
--- Synchronet 3.17a-Win32 NewsLink 1.110
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net
--- Synchronet 3.16c-Win32 NewsLink 1.103
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 325 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 41:56:09 |
| Calls: | 508 |
| Messages: | 220029 |