We’re expecting new Macs soon which will require Mac OS X Lion (10.7). In my initial testing, there are a couple issues with the 8.1.617 Mac client:
The “User Name” property always returns . The “logged on user” inspector seems to not return results anymore.
The “application” inspector does not return results. We use this to identify application versions for patches so it’s a big deal.
The client does report to the server and a few fixlets have applied, so I have the feeling things are mostly working. Any ETA on when 10.7 will officially be supported?
Apple is now shipping hardware (MacBook Air, Mac Mini) that requires Lion. Is there any update on Lion support?
We’re planning to upgrade our TEM systems to 8.1.617 soon and would like to know if it will require more than a Mac client upgrade for Lion support so we don’t have to upgrade the servers twice.
I submitted a ticket about Lion support and received this reply from IBM/TEM Support this week:
Max OS X 10.7 continues to be a stretch goal for TEM 8.2 and it’s not a part of the committed release at this time, Our intent is to release TEM 8.2 in the Q4 2011 time frame, but it’s not a promised date.
While I can understand that Apple’s OS cycle doesn’t match up with TEM’s, not only does the Mac TEM client have some issues with Lion it also seems that neither the Mac OS X 10.7.1 update nor the Security Update 2011-005 (Lion) updates are available from the “Patches for Mac OS X” site. We’re having to manually create these and the number of Macs running Lion in our environment increases with every new Mac ordered.
I understand your frustrations, but the problem is that without an official Mac OS X 10.7 client available, we can’t really provide patches for it. Just think, if a bug occurs, whose fault is it? The Fixlet itself or the client who’s not officially supported in 10.7? As you can see, the current client cannot properly run on Mac OS X 10.7, so for any problem that occurs, it will be hard to determine if it’s the Fixlet’s issue or the client’s issue. This means that on our end, we don’t have a working client for 10.7 as well, so we cannot create reliable patches for us to test before handing them out to you.
If we release 10.7 patches without a working client, those who saw this thread might go “well, bugs will occur since the client is not officially supported on 10.7, so I understand I will need to troubleshoot it myself”, but many others will go “you provided 10.7 patches, so you fix it; I don’t care if the client cannot properly run on 10.7 because you provided the patch, so it’s your job to fix the problem”.
We’ll let you know when a working client for 10.7 is released.
As we only have a very small mac installed base, the issue is not quite as pressing to us. But we are facing the same issue. New macs just arrived with 10.7 and we have no official TEM client for over two months.
Management doesn’t really care why our software doesn’t fully support it, the just want it and want it now. Welcome to the consumerization of IT. And I’m starting to fear IBM is not going to be able to support such a model. One of the benefits touted when BigFix was required was being able to deliver things they couldn’t previously deliver. I think in this case it’s even more pronounced, as you support OSX now. It really shouldn’t take two months to support a new OS. Developer previews are available and I would seriously hope that IBM is working on a compatible release using those developer editions.
Can we get a firmer date, something more concrete than “We’ll let you know when a working client for 10.7 is released”? Thank you.
I agree, particularly that everyone i know is upgrading to Lion, that we MUST have a solution to run on them. Anyone know who in IBM i can call and ask?
BigFix Product Management – as well as Ben Kus (the BigFix STSM) – spends a lot of time on this Forum… and we know that a Lion agent is highly desired. However, Apple made significant changes in Lion and there was a large amount of work we needed to do to get the agent compatible, hence the delay.
However, Apple made significant changes in Lion and there was a large amount of work we needed to do to get the agent compatible, hence the delay.
Were’t there enough road signs? There were several beta releases of 10.7 for developers for this very reason. Couldn’t the majority of testing and code changes have been done prior to the final release?
I’m somewhat concerned that IBM doesnt realize that the low priority for new OS support affects their customer’s ability to deploy and support a new OS. We take flack from users for something beyond our control. We shouldn’t be the victims of IBM’s timeline. That should never happen. How can I recommend TEM to a Mac admin and say “but I don’t know when it will support 10.7” in the same sentence?
Delayed OS support may have been acceptable before, but that’s changing. Fast. The winning systems management product will be the one that’s best tuned to what’s coming – not just what’s out there now.
I have to agree with boyd that 10.7 wasn’t an OS that came out of no where. It was pretty easy to get developer releases bits. With that fact this delay seems to be much more about IBM having higher priorities.
Not having support of a new Mac OS within 30 days of it’s release is what I consider a very questionable decision by IBM. If you’re going to support platform then really support it and be extremely timely with updates. If not, make an end of life announcement for that platform so we re-evaluate your products worth to our organization. Mac is 43% of our deployment, timely support isn’t a “would be nice” feature requirement.
My 2 issues around this problem are:
The lack of communication to the customer about TEM’s Mac 10.7 support from IBM. This question was started by Aaron on 7/28. An IBM employee didn’t respond until 9/22 and even then the comment was strictly about content not being provided.
There is no set expectation about when IBM will deliver an updated agent for new versions of an OS. IBM should set proper expectations with customers about when an updated agent will be available when new OS versions. I’d prefer a universal time period, of 1-2 months from a new OS release, regardless of platform. “When we get around to it” isn’t cutting it.