ml> more modern in what way(s)? server/slave type where the BBS core is the
 ml> server and the slaves are what are spawned to handle each connection and
 ml> they talk to the server to pass the results back to the connected client
 ml> in whatever format they desire?

Because telnet sessions were handled in threads, not sub processes. And
because there was no local console I/O for each node like old DOS BBS systems.

The second part is what made it faster and more portable.  The inter-process
communication was better too, but its used so infrequently that its not all
that noticable.  V2 had everything in memory at its exposure, while V1 uses
pipes or in some cases (still uses) raw data files to communicate betwee the
separate processes.

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A37 (Windows)