built-in Apache (1.3) or Apache 2.0 ?

built-in Apache (1.3) or Apache 2.0 ?

Post by BreadWithS » Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:05:27

Anyone have strong opinions as to whether it's worth
installing Apache 2.0 instead of using the 1.3 which
comes built-in on OS X?

Advantage to the built-in one - none really except for
convenience - it's already there and, presuambly, Apple
will keep it up-to-date for security fixes automatically.
It appears to be version 1.3.33 - only one version old
and only missing relatively minor security and bug fix.

Else - there's apache 2.0 via Fink, or via Aaron Faby's
ServerLogistics.com packaged release.

Apparently, the main features of 2.0 are better multithreading
(not a major concern for small-scale personal stuff),
filtered modules (also not a big deal unless for some
reason you have cgi outputing ssi stuff), and better
handling of SSL. Apache.org indicates that 2.2 is out,
but Aaron Faby's packaged release is a slightly old 2.0.52
same as the current stable Fink release.

I'm kind of interested in the SSL stuff, but it's not
a huge priority at the moment.

Just curious what folks out there are using and, maybe, why.

Also - how about backing up configurations and such?
I'm a little concerned about Apple's updates overwriting
custom config if I modify it.

Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?

built-in Apache (1.3) or Apache 2.0 ?

Post by claude » Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:27:46

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

What will you be using it for?

If you are developing site(s) that will be hosted elsewhere
than it's not a bad idea to have the same version of Apache
and the plugins that the service provider uses.

Are there features that are not in the Apple provided version
that you need or would like to use? In my case the answer was
"yes" to both these questions so I use Fink to manage the server
and my needed add-ons.

Are you exposing your local server to the Internet? If not, then
the security updates are less critical.

If you are just using the local server to put up pages for yourself
and don't need any extras then the Apple one should be fine.

As far as backup of config, I copy the /sw/etc/apache2 directory
elsewhere before making changes and after the changes are proved
to both work as I thought and not break anything...

I forget where the Apple installation stores the configuration
files, but the principle should be the same.



built-in Apache (1.3) or Apache 2.0 ?

Post by Tom Harrin » Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:46:23

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

This is really an Apache question, not a Mac OS X one, so you're more
likely to get thoughtful answers if you find a forum where Apache is a
more-common topic.

If you go for a custom Apache, just don't put the files in the same
places as the stock Apache, and you'll be fine. Apple's config goes in
/etc/httpd/, logs in /var/log/httpd/, modules in /usr/libexec/httpd/,
and of course the server binary is at /usr/sbin/httpd. Put your copy
somewhere else and you should have no trouble with yours getting
overwritten by the next Mac OS X update.

Depending on how you want to do it, your copy could keep things in
/usr/local/, or /opt/, or wherever.

Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.yqcomputer.com/

built-in Apache (1.3) or Apache 2.0 ?

Post by hairy.bike » Fri, 24 Feb 2006 06:00:18

I'm currently using the built in version, and it hasn't really been a
bother, I certainly couldn't say I've been missing anything.

Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
< http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ;
(updated Jan 2006)