vile VS Traditional Ex - Vi editor

I've found vile a good option as I'm addicted to syntax highlighting: similar speed to nvi, much faster than vis and vim. https://invisible-island.net/vile/. - Source: Hacker News / about 2 years ago

I actually prefer vile ... But vim has become the de facto standard, so I have to learn vim. Source: about 2 years ago

No! The only true editor is Vile - Emacs with vi commands. Lol. Source: over 2 years ago

The traditional vi is still available. I have it on my Fedora system. Source: over 1 year ago

Is the current version of Vi older than GNU Emacs? Pacman links to this page which states the software was made an 76 and adopted an open source license in 2002. Source: about 2 years ago

I installed ex-vi on my computer, and it created vi as a symbolic link to the ex program that it installed. See man vi on your computer; you might find some more information about which vi you have. After having installed ex-vi, I see the following in man vi on my computer:. Source: about 2 years ago

Unlike many GNU distributions, it looks the distribution you are using does not install vim-tiny as vi; instead it seems to have either Keith Bostic's implementation of vi, called nvi)[https://sites.google.com/a/bostic.com/keithbostic/vi/], or the real vi (at least, the closest to the real vi that Bill Joy wrote). Source: about 2 years ago

As NilsLandt said, you probably did not use vi on these machines, you can compile it for comparison, the source used for Arch Linux is here http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/. Source: about 2 years ago