Joerg Schilling wrote: > <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > >> This just verifies that you're playing word games. If you want vi that's >> not vim, may I ask which *version* of vi you would consider to be vi - >> one >> from, say, Sun OS 3? Or from the Irix that ran on our Indigo in the >> early/mid-nineties? or one from Tru-64 in the late nineties? or were you >> insisting on one that ran on a system from the early-to-mid-eighties? > > SunOS 3 Vi source not available to the public. > Irix Vi source not available to the public. > Tru-64 Vi source not available to the public. > .... > > You currently may have the vi source from aprox. 1979 under a 4 clause BSD > license or the current Solaris vi under the CDDL. The latter was POSIX > compliant approved. And so you assert that if you don't have a version of vi that is strictly compatible with the 1979 source, and has no improvements or bugfixes, it's not vi? mark