10.8.1 Server do NOT update

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Server, Xserve, and Networking' started by spookfx, Aug 23, 2012.

  1. spookfx macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2011
    :confused: HELP!!!!

    Just updated a ML Server to 10.8.1 and now when I launch the server app I get
    "Server requires OS X 10.8. The server you’re trying to connect to is not running OS X 10.8. Install OS X 10.8 on the server and try again."

    Oh dear Apple... Are you sleeping?

  2. spookfx, Aug 23, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2012

    spookfx thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2011
    Messy Hack

    Ok a messy temporary solution, if you are stuck and need to get the server app running:

    Open a terminal

    cd /System/Library/CoreServices/
    sudo vi SystemVersion.plist ( I hope you know how to use vi/vim )
    replace 12B19 with 12A239 ....

    You also need to change The Product Version from 10.8.1 to 10.8

    so it looks like:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
    <plist version="1.0">
    <string>1983-2012 Apple Inc.</string>
    <string>Mac OS X</string>

    **** Thanks to pjp_1976 for pointing out you only need to change one of the 10.8.1's to 10.8 *****

    You might need to reboot for it to work....

    I'm going to keep looking for a better (patch the server app) fix...

    But good luck...
  3. mwhities macrumors 6502a

    Jul 13, 2011
    Thanks for the post. I had considered it last night but, was to tired to mess with it.
  4. spookfx thread starter macrumors newbie

    Feb 16, 2011
    Server Version

    I have also realised, that I was running an old Developer version of the ML Server app GM... V 2.0.21, this has issues...

    If you update to the current version, V 2.0.23 it works with 10.8.1...
  5. XoticMike macrumors newbie

    Sep 5, 2012
    How does one do this ? :rolleyes:
  6. Les Kern macrumors 68040

    Les Kern

    Apr 26, 2002
    Unrelated and could be considered a rant, but a lot of what I do is with about 20 OS X servers, most on 10.5 or 10.6. There was a time when they were seriously looking at the enterprise, and those servers were getting pretty sophisticated. Now I get the impression that the server coding team works out of a 1974 Chevy Vega in the back parking lot. We know now that their enterprise plans are off the table, concentrating on consumer and pro-sumer markets, and frankly, we all know that in a very short time the server sw they DO offer will be gone forever.
    Better be ready for it.
  7. binaryspiral macrumors newbie

    Sep 9, 2012
    If this is true - they better take their code monkeys and throw them at Active Directory, Exchange, SharePoint, and DFS integration into OS X.
  8. MacsRgr8, Sep 11, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2012

    MacsRgr8 macrumors 604


    Sep 8, 2002
    The Netherlands
    Come on guys, it seems pretty obvious that Apple has changed their game regarding to "server".
    A Mac "server" is no longer a System Administrator's tool used only by the IT department which should only run on Server-class hardware.
    Apple axed the Xserve a long time ago. OS X Server Lion is already more or less "a nice and easy server for the rest of us." OS X Mountain Lion had eliminated Server Admin.app (which wasn't default in Lion either...). The app "Server" in 10.8 doesn't even have a DHCP admin anymore.

    OS X Server is cheap, easy and is made for "everyone".

    If you really need a heavy-duty server with enterprise level of support, you won't use OS X Server. You cannot use OS X Server in combination with hardware which belongs in a 19" rack.

    Apple makes sure that the end-user products they make connect perfectly well to the servers already used by the enterprise. That is a far, far better way for Apple to do their business than to try to be a competitor on the server market.
    A shame for Apple ICT enthusiasts, but it seems the reality.

    Here, take a look

    Attached Files:

  9. kingtj macrumors 68020

    Oct 23, 2003
    Brunswick, MD
    re: Purpose of OS X Server

    Well, sort of... I'd honestly say the major reason for the existence of OS X Server today, though, is its usefulness in an environment full of iOS mobile devices. The MDM (mobile device manager) is very useful, even in very large businesses, so such things as mail server settings and wi-fi settings can be pushed to all the iPhones and iPads centrally (while preventing the users from making accidental changes to those settings on their devices).

    Our company is getting ready to use this functionality so the wi-fi settings get auto updated when one of our employees visits one of our offices in different cities. Instead of them having to know the wi-fi password used at a particular office and manually joining the proper network the first time, the proper settings will be automatically pushed to the device as soon as they're on site and it will just connect up.

    This type of functionality easily justifies the cost of a Mac Mini dedicated to running OS X Server at a location, just to handle the device management. But it's clearly something you don't need "serious rack mount hardware" to accomplish.

  10. Mattie Num Nums macrumors 68030

    Mattie Num Nums

    Mar 5, 2009
    MDM is useless because users can un-enroll themselves at any time.
  11. SuperPuppy macrumors newbie

    Sep 19, 2012
    Hmm, I have never used OSX Server, however, in an Enterprise environment, I seriously doubt many would want users being able to un-enroll themselves.

    The cost of standards is that its just that, its a standard, and in general for good reason, support overhead, etc.

    Just my $.02
  12. Mattie Num Nums macrumors 68030

    Mattie Num Nums

    Mar 5, 2009
    Its one of the downfalls of MDM. We used to use JAMF for our MDM solution but got sick of dealing with users un enrolling themselves. When I got my CMA certificate one of the caveats was Apple makes it so that the un enroll by user is enabled.
  13. kingtj macrumors 68020

    Oct 23, 2003
    Brunswick, MD
    re: useless

    I agree that's not ideal, but I'd hardly call it useless?
    If you deploy it as an aid to make life easier for users, vs. a security measure FORCING settings on people -- it makes perfect sense.


Share This Page