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

Snow Leopard calls it httpd and Ubuntu apache2. Are there any differences? One difference is apache2ctl on Ubuntu and apachectl on Snow Leopard.


share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Well, httpd is basically just the same as apache2 in most modern operating systems. Of course, you should check an actual version of Apache in your system because minor version numbers can (and will) differ.

share|improve this answer
It's not so much about "modern" vs. "non-modern", but rather just historical naming conventions. RHEL6, for instance, still calls apache "httpd". – EEAA Sep 2 '11 at 12:49
@ErikA I meant there still could be Apache 1.X somewhere also referred as httpd. But in all recent OSes httpd is Apache 2.X not Apache 1.X. – Alex Sep 2 '11 at 13:08
Ahh, sure. Understood now. – EEAA Sep 2 '11 at 14:03

On Snow Leopard, I see this:

$ apachectl -v
Server version: Apache/2.2.17 (Unix)
Server built:   Dec  1 2010 09:58:15

On Lucid, I see this:

$ apache2ctl -v
Server version: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu)
Server built:   Sep  1 2011 09:47:45

So, yes, essentially the same. The difference in naming probably has to do with historic packaging conventions at Ubuntu and Apple. RHEL, for what it's worth, also calls its Apache2 package "httpd".

share|improve this answer
The best solution, given that we don't know your patchlevel or versions you're comparing, is just what @cjc did. Check the versions. And you might want to see if you can find the compiled options as well. Otherwise, we'd have to know what in particular you're trying to do to see what difference you're worried about between them. – Bart Silverstrim Sep 2 '11 at 12:21
thx - I'm trying to keep local dev and prod in sync as much as possible as our SA has bailed out. Ideally, I'd like to know if I could just create a symlink and have a common set of scripts to check for. – timpone Sep 2 '11 at 12:43

Your Answer


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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.