Big Sur Version Number

[amorrisuk]

We have noticed that JamF is reporting Big Sur as 10.16.0, but apple are declaring Big Sur as 11.0.1

This is causing a few problems with Smart Groups we have setup for Big Sur Testing.

[mwu1876]

I noticed the same thing this morning. Hope Jamf adjusts it to align with Apple.

[Robert_Lavender]

I need to know for our F5 Access Policies.

[mschroder]

For now I use osversion ge 10.16, so it doesn't matter whether it is '10.16' or '11.0.1'.

[quip_MDavison]

From what I'm reading this is intentional, Big Sur itself will report 10.16 in certain contexts instead of 11.x to maintain backwards compatibility with certain apps. Not sure what the context is for when it reports 10.16 vs 11.x specifically though.

[MLBZ521]

This should be "resolved" in a future release.

Regarding what @quip_MDavison mentioned, see:

• macOS version numbering isn’t so simple
• macOS Version Big Sur Update

[janselmi3953]

I base a lot of my smart groups related to OS version, so if I were to use 10.16 to build my groups and they fall out of scope after a change, that could be a potential problem for me.

[sdamiano]

There are two solutions to that.

Version = 10.16 OR Version = 11.0.1
Or Version >=10.16, cause 11 is greater than 10.16.

[bjones]

Sorry disregard this systems needed a recon.

[Robert_Lavender]

I've found that although the OS reports itself as 11.0.1 the backend version which the F5 Edge Client finds at the moment is 10.16
So I've had to set our F5 Access Policy to allow OS version 10.16 to allow MacOS into our environment.

[scottearle]

The "Patch Management" screen on Jamf Pro tells me that we have zero (zero!) machines running the latest version of macOS, which is says is 11.0.1, but my machine (running 11.0.1) is reported by Jamf as running 10.16 ...

Looks like this is a problem that needs fixing at Jamf's end somehow

[mmcallister]

Take this with a grain of salt - I read today that Intel-based Macs report 10.16, and M1-based Macs report 11.0.1. Don't have a M1 machine to verify this on yet.

[allac]

We have the same problem, let's hope Jamf is going to fix it soon.

[mike_paul]

Hello, thanks for the post and the discussion around this. Sorry for the confusion.

Apple reports Big Sur in two different ways depending on if the binary checking the OS build was built on previous versions of Xcode or the newly released version of Xcode 12.

Starting with Jamf Pro 10.25.2, released today, the Jamf Pro management framework has been updated with Xcode 12 so it will now report Big Sur as macOS 11.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks!
Mike

[jhalvorson]

So the smart group for Big Sur should be???:

Operating System Version LIKE 11.0.
OR 
Operating System Version LIKE 11.1.

Then add more ORs for each minor version, for when 11.2. is released?

I am trying to avoid getting any 10.11.x device in the mix. That will occur if you simply enter: " 11."

I could include greater than and less than, but what is the most efficient method for just Big Sur 11.

The jamf release notes state:

In Jamf Pro, create a new group with the version 11.x.x as criteria.

Some will think they literally should enter it in as 11.x.x. But I don't think of x as being any wildcard or valid entry for criteria.

[sdagley]

@jhalvorson Operating System Version Greater Than or Equal to 11.0 will get you Big Sur and not 10.11.x once you're on Jamf Pro 10.25.2 or later

[jhalvorson]

@sdagley Our JSS is at 10.25.2.
I will try that and include
And less than or equal to 11.9
So that we are prepared when macOS 12 is release next fall.

[mschroder]

You can also use 'Operating System' 'matching regex' '^11.'

[fernando_gonzal]

before our upgrade to 10.25.2 I set up a Smart Group with 'operating system version' 'LIKE' 10.16 OR 11 and no problems after upgrade.

Machines that haven't checked back in yet are still showing up in the view results as 10.16.0 but those that checked in after the upgrade now report back as 11.0.1.

We had one deployed product on Catalina which is causing kernel panics on Big Sur and we're using this Smart Group to exclude it. Summary: I'll rest easy this weekend.

[MLBZ521]

@jhalvorson You can do the [greater | less] than option and/or you (depending on what you're attempting to get), you can also exclude 10.11. So Operating System Verison not like 10.11.

[MLBZ521]

@mschroder The criteria Operating System Version does not support RegEx.

[sdagley]

@MLBZ521 That's why @mschroder specified "Operating System". Unlike "Operating System Version", which is a numeric response, it's a text response which happens to contain the version string so RegEx is usable on it.

[MLBZ521]

Ah, I see. I didn't read close enough, my bad.

[fstask]

I upgraded to Jamf PRO 10.26.0 yesterday but none of our seven Macs running on Big Sur are reporting a version number beginning with 11 this morning. All but two have checked in since the upgrade and still show 10.16 in their inventory records. So something still isn't quite right, at least with our system.

[jtrant]

@fstask the OS information is updated on inventory, not check-in.

[fstask]

Yep. Figured that out this morning. All are reporting 11.0.1 now. Thanks.

[donmontalvo]

(Deleted, community sanity check prevailed, see https://www.jamf.com/jamf-nation/discussions/37295/big-sur-version-number#responseChild211661)

[mschroder]

Why create an extension attribute for something that the standard framework already gives you?

[donmontalvo]

@mschroder point taken, for some reason it didn't work in the past, confirmed I was using Operating System Version which doesn't provide regex.

Using Operating System, regex, this works in identifying any 10.16.x or 11.x computers. Thanks!

^11.|^10.16