Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I found this in httpd.conf:

LoadModule rewrite_module modules/

Isn't the .so files for linux?

Shouldn't it be .dll for windows?

share|improve this question

Two things I can think of here:

  1. Apache is smart enough to use the platform-specific extension on other platforms and doesn't care too much about the .so.

  2. DLLs can be named as you like, the extension can be arbitrary. You can name DLLs on Windows .so if you like.

ETA: As mh mentions in a comment, it's actually both: Apache will load .dll files, even though .so is preferred on Windows systems (Source). Of course, even if it's named .so, it's still a normal PE library.

share|improve this answer
Can it be proved? – vps Feb 10 '10 at 10:52
+1: Apache, coming from a Unix background, shouldn't place too much emphasis on the filename extension (it's just the last few characters of the name): the contents of the file are more important. – pavium Feb 10 '10 at 11:07
Here we go: Makes sense from the Apache perspective as it means that the same config files can be used on any OS. – Le Comte du Merde-fou Feb 10 '10 at 11:24

In Windows at least there is no technical requirement for any particular file extension. I imagine the same applies to Linux. File extensions simply provide a mechanism for the OS and the human operators to associate certain files with particular operations or applications.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.