Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!liv!qq11
From: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Alan Thew)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: A Standard 'vi' (if such a thing exists)
Message-ID: <90339.134256QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Date: 5 Dec 90 13:42:56 GMT
References: <11855@sybase.sybase.com> <764@pdxgate.UUCP> <90332.124931QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> <11958@sybase.sybase.com>
Organization: University of Liverpool
Lines: 24

In article <11958@sybase.sybase.com>, forrest@orion.sybase.com (Jon Forrest)
says:
>
>In article <90332.124931QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:
>>
>>I would take AT&T's vi for SVR4 as a 'standard' unless BSD 4.4 is a
>>radical improvement on the previous BSD versions....
....
>Since 'vi' was born in Berkeley and first appeared in one of the
>PDP-11 BSD releases I don't see any reason to treat AT&T's version
>as the true 'vi' other than just because of AT&T's relationship to
>Unix. I'm wondering what the status of 'vi' will be in 4.4 BSD.
I only pointed to SVr4 because in my experience of BSD versions vs
AT&T versions, the AT&T versions offer more/better functionality.
I freely admit that doesn't make it the 'true' vi but perhaps a
the better one.....

(no flames please :-))

Alan Thew  : University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory
Bitnet/Earn: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL @ UKACRL
    UUCP   :           ....!mcsun!ukc!liv!qq11
   Voice   :  +44 51 794 3735        FAX : +44 51 794 3759
Internet   : QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK @ NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK