Joerg Schilling wrote:
> <m.r...@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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
