This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This partial list is rather pointless, given that it makes no effort to explain *which* Unix uses these daemons. It should be relegated to a list in the daemon article. --Joy [shallot] 22:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is in deed pointless. In modern Unix variants there is a multitude of daemons for all kinds of stuff (think dbus etc.). The most daemon like programms are not even listed in the posix standard documents. It might however be helpful to create a List of "classic" unix daemons. i.e. services that where (or are) offered in a wide variety of unix like systems. init cron and the nfs stuff seems fitting. httpd not so much. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that while this article as it exists is pointless, it could be narrowed to "top / critical / core" services. Also, I propose that the article ("Unix_daemons") be a redirect to Unix-like_daemons or even Unix-like_Services as UNIX is a copyrighted term. I would love to see "popular (>1% usage globally) examples of daemons that provide these services". badboyjamietalk 06:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
(1). Huh? It is a list which is a list is a list, right? If you have any ideas to make the structure of the list more useful, please explain. If you want to improve item summaries, this is hardly "from ground up". Please be more specific what you have in mind.
(2) What is service you are talking about? This list is list of unix daemons, not all kinds of services. As for usage examples, I say "no". They belong to main article. (Lists of) examples tend to mushroom/spam/have NPOV+REF issues, better be confined to specific pages.
I think we should start by defining a clearer criteria. First of all, the world "Unix" is an ill-defined term:
Does it refer to the "classical" Unix (e.g. System V)? (I think this would make the article rather obsolete and pointless.)
Does it refer to the proprietary and/or open source derivatives? The BSDs have tons of derivatives -- do we include daemons shipped with those? If not, where do you draw the line?
And Mac OS X, which is a derivative of Unix?
Does it include "Unix-like" systems like Linux? I see you suggest above that should be "no", although the article says "yes"
What "daemons" are included? You said "standard unix daemons (i.e., installed as part of OS)", "daemons notable enough to have wikipedia articles", although that's your interpretation and not written anywhere in the article. -- intgr[talk] 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I said what I said because these are wikipedia practice IMO. While there are tons of derivatives, I don't think there are tons of OS daemons. Even if there are, if they are mentioned in wikipedia somewhere, they must have either articles or redirects. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This article also lists ancient daemons like biod, swapper, syncd, vhand, which don't have Wikipedia articles and aren't included in any modern system. -- intgr[talk] 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not the most recent version of a user guide, right? "Digital obsolescence" should have no power. If some daemon did something useful in the past, it deserves an article (or a section): what it did, who does its job now (or whether its job no longer exists), etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Why exclude popular daemons like nginx, lighttpd, thttpd, PowerDNS, Postfix etc, on the basis that they weren't chosen to be included in the default install? If anything, these are more Unix-ish than Apple's stuff.
And I'm just a Linux user, I don't know half the things about proper "Unices". I simply find this criteria unworkable. If you ask me, it's more like "totally arbitrary collection of software". Which is probably why nobody has dared to touch this article for years (last time an item was added was in 2009 October).
Apologies for being bitter. Can you help with coming up with a better criteria? -- intgr[talk] 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Whatever the intention or intended function, the article or list in its current form is not foreseeably likely to be useful. How is it likely to be useful and stay useful? It lacks context. A list article referring to any dynamic set is less than half as good as its standard of maintenance, and I see no sign of maintenance in this one. Suppose some monastic masochist undertook to maintain it till he got a life/wife? What would the future of the article be? Unless some company or group of companies in that segment of the market undertook to maintain a set of such articles, I don't see it going anywhere. I certainly am in no position to help, but though I have no objection to list articles -- I actually approve of them in principle -- I don't think that this one deserves its bit space unless the situation changes. JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, what you wrote is an ubiquitous problem of wikipedia. And there is the only solution: a volunteer to do this job. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I do think the list has some use, I'm quite surprised that we don't have a Category Unix daemons which is a well defined group of programs. There is a case for a list as well as some of the deamons like crond don't have separate articles so would not be findable through the category system. If we look at List of Unix utilities we see it has a "First appeared" column which lists the system it was first used on. A similar column for system distinguishing BDS/System V/linux and possibly Mac would be useful. Not sure about Mac specific ones, maybe better in an OSX specific article. Distinguishing between general system and application specific ones is also a good thing to do, but I would not want to go over the top on the applications. I'd be happy with general classes, the httpd entry could mention the varients, but the detail can be found on the httpd page. I don't think we need to go into the command line arguments.--Salix (talk): 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I would not suggest to exclude any daemons from this list unless the list becomes longer than 1-2 hundred items. When this happens, one may look at the list and come with ideas how to split it. For starters, one may look at List of Unix utilities (criteria, format, etc.). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I feel there is a need for a list of Unix[-like] daemons, but I'm not sure of the best format. A stand-alone article, as noted above, has its problems. Having the same list as part of the Daemon (computing) article, with a redirect from here, could be a better solution. Or, I like Salix's suggestion to add a Category Unix daemons. Given the choice I'd probably put all our eggs in one basket (Daemon (computing)) and then guard that basket (i.e. maintain the article). Then add the category. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I concur with most of the responses given by user Staszek Lem. However, I also think the suggestions by Salix and Dan Griscom have merit, and would go along with Dan Griscom's preferred solution:
It seems like a kind of pointless article to me, especially given its current state, but I can see how it might be turned into a somewhat useful resource. In particular, I like Salix's suggestions. I would prefer we didn't start listing minutiae like oddball daemons used only by one Linux distribution. That OCD level of attention to detail just makes for an unreadable article. To be listed, daemons would have to be notable and used across multiple UNIX-like operating systems, not just existent. Restricting this list to notable services sounds good, too. ntp, smtp, nntp, httpd, etc. If people want to list common implementations (Apache, Sendmail/Postfix, CUPS, etc), I guess that would be OK, as long as it doesn't take over the entire article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)