Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!
ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hp-sde!hpcea!markb
From: ma...@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Mark Biasotti)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: VI editor for DOS ?
Message-ID: <780004@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>
Date: 15 Jun 88 17:52:25 GMT
Organization: HP Corporate Engineering - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 7
Is anyone aware of a "vi" type of editor for DOS based products? If
such a product does not exist, what existing DOS based editor comes
closest to vi?
The reason I ask is because I like, and have become productive with,
the vi editor. I'm now having to investigate DOS applications and
don't like the "edlin" line editor.
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!
att!mtunx!whuts!homxb!homxc!roger
From: ro...@homxc.UUCP (Another Technical Editor)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: VI editor for DOS ?
Summary: Addresses for two
Message-ID: <2432@homxc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 88 14:28:54 GMT
References: <780004@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>
Organization: The Big Glass Box In The Pasture
Lines: 21
In article <780...@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>, ma...@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Mark Biasotti)
writes:
>
> Is anyone aware of a "vi" type of editor for DOS based products? If
> such a product does not exist, what existing DOS based editor comes
> closest to vi?
>
I can think of two. My favorite is PC-VI, which costs
about $125 and is available from
Custom Software Services
P.O. Box 678
Natick, MA 01760
The other is either a public domain or shareware editor
called Z. It's packaged with the Aztec compiler by
Manx Software Inc.
One Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Roger Tait ..ihnp4!homxc!roger
(201) 949-1136
AT&T Bell Labs Technical Publications Holmdel, NJ
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watcgl!nnpeterson
From: nnpeter...@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Neil N. Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Vi for the PC/XT
Message-ID: <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Date: 20 Jun 88 20:10:45 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Has anyone out there ported the unix source for Vi (posted a short while ago)
to the IBM PC/XT? If so I would dearly love to know, it would save me some
badly needed time.
Blue Skies,
Neil
(Neil N. Peterson)
nnpeter...@cgl.waterloo.edu
CSNET: nnpeterson%wat...@waterloo.CSNET
ARPA: nnpeterson%watcgl%waterloo.cs...@csnet-relay.ARPA
BITNET: nnpeterson%watcgl%water...@csnet-relay.ARPA
OTHER: nnpeter...@cgl.waterloo.cdn
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
mailrus!umix!teemc!wayne
From: wa...@teemc.UUCP (//ichael R. //ayne)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: VI editor for DOS ?
Message-ID: <1481@teemc.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jun 88 05:44:27 GMT
References: <780004@hpcea.CE.HP.COM> <2432@homxc.UUCP>
Reply-To: wa...@teemc.UUCP (/\/\ichael R. \/\/ayne)
Organization: TMC & Associates, Troy, MI
Lines: 21
In article <2...@homxc.UUCP> ro...@homxc.UUCP (Another Technical Editor)
writes:
>In article <780...@hpcea.CE.HP.COM>, ma...@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Mark Biasotti)
>writes:
-> Is anyone aware of a "vi" type of editor for DOS based products? If
-> such a product does not exist, what existing DOS based editor comes
-> closest to vi?
->
>I can think of two. My favorite is PC-VI, which costs
>about $125 and is available from
>Custom Software Services
>P.O. Box 678
>Natick, MA 01760
Sorry, Custom Software Systems was sued by AT&T for copyright
infringment and is no longer in business. Rather a shame as they did
have a pretty good vi for MS-DOS. I do not know the deatails but I
do know that they no longer have a phone and my USmail goes unanswered.
/\/\ \/\/
--
Michael R. Wayne --- TMC & Associates --- wa...@teemc.uucp
INTERNET: wayne%teemc.u...@umix.cc.umich.edu uunet!umix!teemc!wayne
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!mtunx!lzaz!lznv!psc
From: p...@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Posting UNIX(R) system source (was: Vi for the PC/XT)
Summary: Posting UNIX system source is not a good thing to do
Message-ID: <1382@lznv.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Jun 88 04:42:39 GMT
References: <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: comp
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 52
< If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. >
In article <4...@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, nnpeter...@watcgl.waterloo.edu
(Neil N. Peterson) writes:
> Has anyone out there ported the unix source for Vi (posted a short while ago)
> to the IBM PC/XT?
The source to the vi screen editor is copywritten material. AT&T
licenses this source code to various companies and universities, but
this license does *not* allow further distribution. Anyone posting or
otherwise giving the source to anyone not covered by their
organization's license is in a lot of trouble personally, and has just
gotten his or her organization into a lot of trouble. Ditto for anyone
who takes the source, ports it to another environment, and distributes
the result without working things out with AT&T.
< ENTER DISCLAIMER MODE >
It's my understanding that Custom Software Systems' PC/VI was a port
from AT&T source code. They were passing off AT&T's program as if it
were their own. The disagreement between CSS and AT&T was based on
license and copyright violation, *not* look and feel. I believe that
Mortice Kern Systems' MKS/VI is a reimplementation, not a port. AT&T
has taken no stand on this; but then, taking no stand is taking a
stand, too, right?
Look, there are people who think that all software should be freely
distributed. They're acting responsibly on that belief (writing lots
of potentially useful software, with the only restriction being you
can't restrict further distribution).
Then there are people who think that software should be a business you
can make a profit off of. They provide value for the money, or they
don't last in the marketplace. AT&T is in this category. AT&T has put
lots of resources into the UNIX operating system, and is putting even
more in now. As a result, AT&T (by the current laws in effect)
deserves compensation for their effort.
Then there are people who think that software should be distributed
freely (especially to themselves), no matter who developed it or has
legal rights to it. I have nothing polite to say about such people.
Yes, at one point, the Regents of the University of California had the
rights to the vi source code. One, they don't any longer, for whatever
reason. Two, would you really feel better ripping off UC?
< LEAVE DISCLAIMER MODE >
-Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc
AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet p...@lznv.att.com
I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind.
Some of the above opinions reflect those of my employer.
UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of AT&T.