204:
112:
81:
180:
867:
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.
50:
21:
266:
361:
351:
330:
866:
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
1111:
Only if the examples section in that article grows too big or too detailed, retain it as a separate article. It should never be just a list, but a table, listing, for each example, the daemon's name, the year and Unix version in which it was introduced, some more examples of versions of Unix(-likes)
494:
I did add some additional information, and modified my text to say Unix-like, although I do agree with most of you, this list is a little weird. I will work on it a little more, maybe I can try to incorporate some better information and help it a little more. This information is useful, just need to
1087:
8 years later, I arrive here with the same question. As far as I'm concerned, an article must serve a clear purpose: readers reading an article must clearly understand its scope and quickly be able to determine whether their particular question(s) are within scope. That purpose isn't clear to me in
838:
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
1070:
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
916:
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
454:
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
470:
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 (:
1065:
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
577:(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.
1123:
It would be nice, but not strictly necessary, to also have a more general article on "daemon"/"service" processes in computing, and their relationship with services. This is hard to write, because the concepts and terminology tend to be quite OS-specific.
680:
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.
584:
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
917:
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
937:
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
1107:
Have a general article about Unix daemons that discusses the daemons on Unix and Unix-like operating systems: their purpose, how they work, and typical examples, ranging from 1970s Unix to today's Unix-like
1190:
297:
722:" 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.
1170:
31:
960:
I feel there is a need for a list of Unix 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
1185:
218:
1180:
170:
1096:
article that lacks a clear scope, and fails to explain some crucial points, such as the purpose of daemons. Without a good understanding of what is meant by
1155:
439:
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
160:
231:
213:
95:
1165:
194:
417:
1195:
136:
1210:
1150:
407:
1160:
456:
833:
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.
1215:
383:
1205:
508:
119:
86:
645:
1066:
distribution. That OCD level of attention to detail just makes for an unreadable article. To be listed, daemons would have to be
189:
91:
1200:
803:
61:
1175:
862:
Whatever the intention or intended function, the article or list in its current form is not foreseeably likely to be useful.
455:
where (or are) offered in a wide variety of unix like systems. init cron and the nfs stuff seems fitting. httpd not so much.
654:
Does it include "Unix-like" systems like Linux? I see you suggest above that should be "no", although the article says "yes"
374:
335:
641:
Does it refer to the "classical" Unix (e.g. System V)? (I think this would make the article rather obsolete and pointless.)
1033:
article. It might be only one of several such lists, depending on relevance and interest: why not also link to such as
881:
Well, what you wrote is an ubiquitous problem of wikipedia. And there is the only solution: a volunteer to do this job.
27:
1112:
that used or use it (with references), and its purpose. Both application-specific daemons and generic daemons such as
745:
593:
280:
610:(4) Per wikipedia rules the things to be listed : (4a) - standard unix daemons (i.e., installed as part of OS), per
1076:
1054:
520:
440:
306:
Create the
Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
638:
I think we should start by defining a clearer criteria. First of all, the world "Unix" is an ill-defined term:
581:
460:
67:
1042:
1046:
1034:
969:
905:
545:
Should only services recognized in /etc/services (SYSV, POSIX) be listed? Should all listed, be included?
512:
1038:
939:
913:
908:
which is a well defined group of programs. There is a case for a list as well as some of the deamons like
872:
132:
611:
1072:
1050:
947:
886:
807:
791:(mysqld) used to be included. Are these Unix daemons? Because most work equally well on every modern OS.
727:
686:
628:
601:
563:
516:
484:
382:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
135:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
996:
943:
882:
723:
682:
624:
597:
1026:
926:
799:
719:
589:
20:
981:
620:(5) There are no static lists in wikipedia. What do you understand under "statement of relevance"?
1093:
1030:
1013:
973:
961:
912:
don't have separate articles so would not be findable through the category system. If we look at
592:, which also may happen to have the same name/function in "unix-like" systems. One may well have
868:
760:
496:
275:
615:
780:
552:
473:
1000:
965:
922:
847:
710:
672:
548:
Should this be a static list, or are professionally-based statements of relevance allowed?
511:
was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a
Knowledge (XXG) article per
1004:
977:
718:
Knowledge (XXG) is encyclopedia, not the most recent version of a user guide, right? "
309:
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
1144:
976:) and then guard that basket (i.e. maintain the article). Then add the category. --
667:", although that's your interpretation and not written anywhere in the article. --
1129:
842:
Apologies for being bitter. Can you help with coming up with a better criteria? --
366:
1016:) and then guard that basket (i.e. maintain the article). Then add the category .
507:
The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG): the result of the
203:
1089:
701:
This article also lists ancient daemons like biod, swapper, syncd, vhand, which
648:-- do we include daemons shipped with those? If not, where do you draw the line?
1133:
1080:
1058:
985:
951:
930:
890:
876:
850:
731:
713:
690:
675:
644:
Does it refer to the proprietary and/or open source derivatives? The BSDs have
632:
605:
566:
524:
487:
464:
179:
111:
80:
843:
768:
764:
706:
668:
356:
705:
have
Knowledge (XXG) articles and aren't included in any modern system. --
128:
964:
article, with a redirect from here, could be a better solution. Or, I like
904:
I do think the list has some use, I'm quite surprised that we don't have a
744:
FreeBSD has some specific daemons like newsyslog, hastd, devd. Solaris has
826:
818:
753:
749:
444:
124:
1125:
1029:
is best as a linked article amplifying the content of the more general
830:
795:
265:
1007:
have merit, and would go along with Dan
Griscom's preferred solution:
822:
472:
1% usage globally) examples of daemons that provide these services".
1104:, the present article lacks a clear scope as well. How to fix this:
921:
page. I don't think we need to go into the command line arguments.--
918:
909:
814:
788:
379:
360:
972:. Given the choice I'd probably put all our eggs in one basket (
784:
776:
772:
596:(or a better title) for non-unix linux daemons (if such exist).
515:, and its inclusion is congruent with building Knowledge (XXG).
350:
329:
43:
15:
763:(which sometimes calls itself "httpd", but there's also the
614:(4b) daemons notable enough to have wikipedia articles, per
542:
Should the exclusionary "Unix" be substituted for Unix-like?
264:
202:
178:
1191:
List-Class
Computer Security articles of Low-importance
257:
252:
247:
242:
661:
standard unix daemons (i.e., installed as part of OS)
378:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
123:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
995:I concur with most of the responses given by user
810:server, Software Update service, their VPN server?
287:Review importance and quality of existing articles
665:daemons notable enough to have wikipedia articles
535:Should this article be rewritten from ground up?
290:Identify categories related to Computer Security
538:Should examples of services (e.g. daemons : -->
1171:List-Class software articles of Low-importance
8:
1088:this case. The reader will need to refer to
999:. However, I also think the suggestions by
651:And Mac OS X, which is a derivative of Unix?
503:Article has been included in Knowledge (XXG)
324:
296:Identify articles for creation (see also:
226:
75:
49:
47:
1186:Low-importance Computer Security articles
278:. Please allow some days for processing.
659:What "daemons" are included? You said "
326:
77:
1181:List-Class Computer Security articles
1092:, which unfortunately redirects to a
513:Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines
145:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing
7:
372:This article is within the scope of
117:This article is within the scope of
66:It is of interest to the following
30:on 9 September 2011. The result of
14:
1156:Low-importance Computing articles
813:Why exclude popular daemons like
794:How about OS X specific daemons?
392:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linux
303:Identify articles for improvement
1166:Low-importance software articles
1012:put all our eggs in one basket (
594:List of additional Linux daemons
359:
349:
328:
110:
79:
48:
19:
804:Apple Push Notification Service
572:RFC comment by User:Staszek Lem
412:This article has been rated as
165:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1196:All Computer Security articles
1071:take over the entire article.
525:08:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
148:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
1211:Low-importance Linux articles
1151:List-Class Computing articles
386:and see a list of open tasks.
274:will be generated shortly by
232:WikiProject Computer Security
214:WikiProject Computer Security
211:This article is supported by
187:This article is supported by
139:and see a list of open tasks.
1161:List-Class software articles
746:Service Management Facility
539:1% global usage) be listed?
1232:
1216:WikiProject Linux articles
942:(criteria, format, etc.).
499:16:56 1 Feb 2024 (US EST)
418:project's importance scale
395:Template:WikiProject Linux
171:project's importance scale
1206:List-Class Linux articles
1134:15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
1081:13:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
1059:06:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
986:13:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
952:20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
931:15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
891:20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
877:06:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
851:20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
732:20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
714:20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
691:20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
676:20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
633:18:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
606:18:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
451:22:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
411:
344:
225:
210:
186:
164:
105:
74:
567:07:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
495:find the right balance.
488:06:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
465:18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
968:'s suggestion to add a
1201:All Computing articles
1043:Category Linux daemons
1018:
940:List of Unix utilities
914:List of Unix utilities
269:
207:
183:
133:information technology
56:This article is rated
1176:All Software articles
1047:Category OS/X daemons
1035:List of Linux daemons
1010:
970:Category Unix daemons
906:Category Unix daemons
808:Apple Filing Protocol
268:
206:
182:
120:WikiProject Computing
60:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1039:List of OS/X daemons
1027:List of Unix daemons
800:Apple Remote Desktop
720:Digital obsolescence
590:list of Unix daemons
588:(3) No. This is the
293:Tag related articles
230:Things you can help
190:WikiProject Software
646:tons of derivatives
281:More information...
1120:should be in here.
1094:Daemon (computing)
1031:Daemon (computing)
1014:Daemon (computing)
974:Daemon (computing)
962:Daemon (computing)
270:
208:
184:
151:Computing articles
62:content assessment
849:
761:Apache web server
712:
674:
497:User:Jessicab8110
449:
448:
432:
431:
428:
427:
424:
423:
375:WikiProject Linux
323:
322:
319:
318:
315:
314:
42:
41:
1223:
1073:NinjaRobotPirate
1021:I do think that
846:
709:
671:
561:
558:
555:
517:Northamerica1000
482:
479:
476:
447:
446:
400:
399:
396:
393:
390:
369:
364:
363:
353:
346:
345:
340:
332:
325:
298:Article requests
283:
227:
153:
152:
149:
146:
143:
114:
107:
106:
101:
98:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
51:
44:
23:
16:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1141:
1140:
1041:, supported by
574:
559:
556:
553:
532:
505:
480:
477:
474:
437:
397:
394:
391:
388:
387:
365:
358:
338:
284:
279:
262:
150:
147:
144:
141:
140:
99:
89:
57:
12:
11:
5:
1229:
1227:
1219:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1121:
1109:
1084:
1083:
1062:
1061:
1049:as required?
1009:
1008:
989:
988:
936:
934:
933:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
854:
853:
840:
839:2009 October).
836:
835:
834:
811:
792:
759:OS X includes
757:
748:. OpenBSD has
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
696:
695:
694:
693:
657:
656:
655:
652:
649:
642:
622:
621:
618:
608:
586:
578:
573:
570:
550:
549:
546:
543:
540:
536:
531:
530:TALK questions
528:
504:
501:
493:
491:
490:
457:84.179.165.176
436:
433:
430:
429:
426:
425:
422:
421:
414:Low-importance
410:
404:
403:
401:
398:Linux articles
384:the discussion
371:
370:
354:
342:
341:
339:Low‑importance
333:
321:
320:
317:
316:
313:
312:
311:
310:
307:
304:
301:
294:
291:
288:
272:Article alerts
263:
261:
260:
255:
250:
245:
239:
236:
235:
223:
222:
219:Low-importance
209:
199:
198:
195:Low-importance
185:
175:
174:
167:Low-importance
163:
157:
156:
154:
137:the discussion
115:
103:
102:
100:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1228:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1015:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
990:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
941:
932:
928:
924:
920:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
899:
892:
888:
884:
880:
879:
878:
874:
870:
865:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
848:
845:
841:
837:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
740:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
708:
704:
700:
699:
698:
697:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
677:
673:
670:
666:
662:
658:
653:
650:
647:
643:
640:
639:
637:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
619:
617:
613:
609:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
575:
571:
569:
568:
565:
562:
547:
544:
541:
537:
534:
533:
529:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
502:
500:
498:
489:
486:
483:
469:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
452:
450:
442:
434:
419:
415:
409:
406:
405:
402:
385:
381:
377:
376:
368:
362:
357:
355:
352:
348:
347:
343:
337:
334:
331:
327:
308:
305:
302:
299:
295:
292:
289:
286:
285:
282:
277:
273:
267:
259:
256:
254:
251:
249:
246:
244:
241:
240:
238:
237:
233:
229:
228:
224:
220:
217:(assessed as
216:
215:
205:
201:
200:
196:
193:(assessed as
192:
191:
181:
177:
176:
172:
168:
162:
159:
158:
155:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
116:
113:
109:
108:
104:
97:
93:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1117:
1113:
1101:
1097:
1067:
1022:
1011:
992:
957:
935:
901:
869:JonRichfield
863:
859:
702:
664:
660:
623:
612:WP:RELEVANCE
580:(2) What is
551:
506:
492:
453:
438:
413:
373:
367:Linux portal
271:
212:
188:
166:
118:
68:WikiProjects
35:
1118:dbus-daemon
1090:Unix daemon
1005:Dan Griscom
997:Staszek Lem
978:Dan Griscom
944:Staszek Lem
883:Staszek Lem
724:Staszek Lem
683:Staszek Lem
625:Staszek Lem
598:Staszek Lem
443:article. --
1145:Categories
769:PostgreSQL
765:CERN httpd
58:List-class
1025:article:
276:AAlertBot
142:Computing
129:computing
125:computers
87:Computing
1108:systems.
860:Comment:
827:PowerDNS
819:lighttpd
754:OpenNTPD
750:OpenBGPD
96:Security
92:Software
28:deletion
1068:notable
993:Comment
958:Comment
902:Comment
831:Postfix
796:launchd
616:WP:LIST
582:service
435:Comment
416:on the
248:history
169:on the
1102:daemon
1100:or by
823:thttpd
585:pages.
441:daemon
131:, and
64:scale.
1114:inetd
1001:Salix
966:Salix
923:Salix
919:httpd
910:crond
844:intgr
815:nginx
789:MySQL
781:samba
707:intgr
703:don't
669:intgr
560:jamie
481:jamie
389:Linux
380:Linux
336:Linux
258:purge
253:watch
234:with:
1130:talk
1116:and
1098:Unix
1077:talk
1055:talk
1051:yoyo
1045:and
1037:and
1023:this
1003:and
982:talk
948:talk
927:talk
887:talk
873:talk
785:CUPS
777:ntpd
773:BIND
728:talk
687:talk
663:", "
629:talk
602:talk
564:talk
521:talk
485:talk
461:talk
445:Joy
243:edit
36:keep
34:was
929:):
864:How
767:),
557:boy
554:bad
509:AfD
478:boy
475:bad
471:-->
408:Low
161:Low
1147::
1132:)
1126:Rp
1079:)
1057:)
984:)
950:)
889:)
875:)
829:,
825:,
821:,
817:,
806:,
802:,
798:,
787:.
783:,
779:,
775:,
771:,
752:,
730:)
689:)
631:)
604:)
523:)
463:)
221:).
197:).
127:,
94:/
90::
1128:(
1075:(
1053:(
980:(
946:(
925:(
885:(
871:(
756:.
726:(
685:(
627:(
600:(
519:(
459:(
420:.
300:)
173:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
