Sometimes something is a standard, not because it is the best, but because it is the thing that everybody expects and can trust to be there.
If you'd like to use another editor you can easily install it.
If you'd like to use another editor you can easily install it.
The latest standard for vi (and the rest of the utilities) can be found here:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/
The standard for vi is specifically:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/v...
Yes, Microsoft, this means you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
Microsoft's native UTF-16 really, really needs an editor that easily saves US7ASCII and UTF-8 correctly, both with LF and CR/LF. The native Windows tools are quite poor in getting this right.
No arguments there. This is all correct. The question is: Is Vim not standards-conformant?
If Vim isn't standards-conformant, I agree some people will expect the original vi to be present.
But if Vim is standards-conformant, do people still want vi to be present? Why?
It's much smaller and standards-compliant. IIRC, Debian started bundling nano instead of vim because nano is smaller (and easier to quit).
One bash behavior oddity is that, when it is called as /bin/sh, this will work:
$ cat pbasher
#!/bin/sh
alias p=printf
p hello\ world!\\n
$ ./pbasher
hello world!
$ ./pbasher
./pbasher: line 3: p: command not found
Forcing POSIX mode enables the alias:
$ cat pbasher
#!/bin/bash
set -o posix
alias p=printf
p hello\ world!\\n
$ ./pbasher
hello world!
There is discussion here:
https://vimhelp.org/vi_diff.txt.html
...the general GNU environment variable to trigger compliance used to be called POSIX_ME_HARDER.