After installing Yosemite OS, my databases are all closed; will not open.
It seems so. Server is not yet ready for Yosemite.
You would expect an Apple Company could have their act together! Or maybe not.
FMI is owned by Apple, but they don't get advanced warning of anything. They find out the same ways we do.
FMI did released the knowledge base article about it...pretty sure the same day. For database and business critical systems, it's really beneficial to NOT be an early adopter. As Wim said in another post, wait a bit and let the bug fixes trickle down before you upgrade. It's good advice, which has saved my bacon a few times.
Same thing happened to me
What I did was reset my license key (that is put it in once again) and voila all is well
Robert Mark wrote: You would expect an Apple Company could have their act together! Or maybe not.
Robert Mark wrote:
And we as developers should get our act together too... Yosemite has been available as a dev beta for many months so you could have tested this a long time ago...
Your solution's deployment is a delicate thing. You can't expect to throw something major like a full OS upgrade at it without doing some due diligence.
With the due diligence you can look like a hero to your customers by guiding them along and avoiding mistakes.
Since Apple promotes OS updates as easy one click installs with no investments involved at all and pushes people to update asap I would expect - especially from a "100% subsidiary" - that FileMaker is ready to go on the release date (others are ...). At least they could have had the public beta all interested people could get - but what? They just tell us, that their current version doesn´t work (they managed to get this information out on the release date hey). Further more they are too lazy to just make some tests with FM12, this is up to the users.
This is the kind of attitude which drives me crazy every time I am confronted with it and FileMaker repeats and repeats: No love to detail, no speed in development, no deep thinking when offering new features, keeping known bugs lists as a trophy rather than being ashamed of every bug, that is obvious. Plus a price tag that gets more and more ridiculous compared to the software market as a whole - love it or hate it.
That's correct. Now I'm up an running again.
I agree, but I also agree with Robert. Some of us developers simply don't have the wherewithal to own a separate machine for every platform on which FMP is compatible, much less a developer server machine as well.
I have always been very disappointed in the way FMI handles system updates in the past. It has cost ME time and in doing so has cost my clients TIME and $$ and plain and simple it's shows bad attention to detail and a very cavalier attitude towards the needs of their customers and developers.
True, we must do our due diligence, but FMI is a "developer" as well, so it's reasonable to assume that a company that is solely owned by Apple have an Apple Developer License, which gives them full opportunity to test their products with various beta versions of the new operating system? Absolutely. Countless little guys spend the time and update their programs found in the app store, and many not found in the app store, so that they are prepared when the new OS X is released. It's
unconscionable that FMI didn't do the same.
And then again. I can't get the web server running.
Ah yes. Just in time. lol
I'm guessing few have ever looked at Apple's bug list. They are just as bad about releasing bug fixes, if that is what you consider bad. I suppose they could go the way of Windows and constantly release bug fixes, and cause 10 other bugs everytime. *shrug*
I've gotten to the point where I realize that some folks will only chime into a conversation to complain...never to offer any assistance to others. And I'm ok with that, because more and more I've started to actually see their work. And I understand why they don't like FileMaker. They think FMI is the responsible for why their solution functions ( or doesn't ) as it does.
I wish more people could have seen what the developer conversations were like before the gates were opened. I think opening a forum for public access can/has been very beneficial. As an unintended consequence, though, many of those in depth, constructive conversations have gone away. And have been replaced with the some of the opposite. It's sad.
I can't agree more with you.
I'd love to see those regular complainers trying to make business with another software tool.
May be my point of view is very biased because I work very closely with FMI but I sure that the folks at FMI take all bug lists very seriously, when they really are a bug. Sometimes the bug is between the chair and the computer... .
I've been selling our FileMaker Solution for 14 years now and many times I have to say no to a feature request. Fortunately for me, only few times I've had to talk with a customer to tell him to wait until I get a serious bug fixed. From this point of view, I can understand when a bug doesn't get fixed right away.
I've been reluctant to chime in on this one but here's my $0.02. Sorry for the length.
Don't mess with a produciton server. If its running fine, leave it be. If there is a real reason to upgrade the OS, then wait for a bit until the dust has settled on it and relevant software has been certified for it. There is rarely any good reason (other than our own geekness) to be that far out on the bleeding edge. Chances are the things that break will far outweigh the benefits of a day-1 installation. We hear this every time a major OS upgrade happens.
New computers will come with the latest and greatest OS version and may not be downgradable. There are ways around that (mainly on the server side) - virtual machines. Booting off of an external drive can be good too.
Several DevCon's ago a FMI employee told a group that FM tests with the early verisons of an OS but basically starts over again on testing when the OS is officially released. I think that is a very prudent and safe way to proceed. Things change, even during the Gold Master releases. For Yosemite, Apple released several GM Candidates, not an official "this is definitely the Gold Master of Yosemite" version. I was quite surprised that Yosemite was released this past week without going to a full GM.
Imagine how long this thread would be if FMI had not published the Knowledge Base article that says "not compatible" as early as they did. People would be screaming much louder. Just becuase FMI is an Apple subsiduary doesn't mean special treatment.
As for running FMS on OS X Server version. With Mavericks Server, like many, I got caught out on that one too. It'll work, then it stops working. Major pain. My home sever also runs shared contacts, shared calendar, etc. for the family. Instead of fighting with it and losing valuable billable time I spent $80 on Parallels, installed it on my server machine and put FMS on a virtual machine running the plain version of Mavericks. Works fine. Maybe a slight performance hit but for my purposes its fine. The main portion of the machine is running Mavericks Server and the Parallels portion has Mavericks and FileMaker Server. I can upgrade the OS X Server to Yosemite if I want to at some point and the FileMaker Server side remains the same. Virtual machines and knowing how to forward ports on the router are your friends.
The many application development companies that are ready to go on day one are in a different environment (as far as I'm concerned). Many of the small app co's are creating the one-trick-pony apps that have a very limited scope. Stuff on the Mac App store can get refreshed in the background without us knowing about it. You're favourite app may be one click away from wiping out your hard drive and you don't know it. Suddenly version 1.01 with "bug fixes" has been released and all is good again.
Think of all of the various components that a FileMaker system can touch and all of the dependancies involved; different database types vis ESS, imported data, 3rd party plugins, OS variations, Server vs client vs mobile vs web. Then add in many users, many locations and mission-critical data that cannot be offline.
The combinations of things that need to be tested must be huge. Even after all the testing is done and a v-rev released there will be combinations that may not have been considered and tested and those willl likely be the ones you use which breaks your system.
I have installed Yosemite on the "family" computer. I tried FileMaker on it to see if I could reproduce the issues in the KB article. So far, all has been fine. My main work machine will get Yosmite eventually.
Personally, I'll wait for FMI and recommend the same to my clients that have that OS-upgrade-itch.
Deacon wrote: I agree, but I also agree with Robert. Some of us developers simply don't have the wherewithal to own a separate machine for every platform on which FMP is compatible, much less a developer server machine as well.
I simply do not agree with this. It is the cost of doing business. And it does not need to be as expensive as you make it out to be. One reasonably sturdy machine can be used to run a VMware or VirtualBox instance for a while to run the OS you want to test on, while you use it for other tasks.
I buy my spare test boxes on eBay. It really is a choice you are making. Deployments & testing are very much part of your solutions life cycle, not just the development part of it.
I agree completely, Wim.
When I paid $40k for my new car... nobody told me the doors leak all over my shoes.. and it was deliberate design. I guess it is buried somewhere in the specs. Next time I will do my test drive when it is pouring with rain.
Apple may or may not release to FMI early warning but they are embargoed until release dates. This is a legal obligation.
I spent a whole day yesterday trying to help a client who upgraded on the release date without checking compatibility. She does this every time and always has problems so you'd think she'd have learnt her lesson by now. Every time I say WAIT until you have checked with me....
This client is an Art Dealer.
We are not Art Dealers... but rather FM / computer 'professionals'... We should know better than to disturb a production machine with a largely untested OS....
Sure FMI releases software which may have bugs they haven't discovered... It is simply impossible to test for every possible config. Marketplace testing is the norm... why pick on FMI alone?
Sent from my iPad
11th Hour Group Pty Ltd
There is also the disillusionment that comes after you have spent hours of unpaid time to help someone who is not prepared to help themselves.
I would add not just Mac OS, but any software, any OS, browser, mail app...google the name and "bug" and you'll get thousands of results from frustrated users. People don't really think of the larger world, they expect their platform to be perfect, when *no* platform is. It's really really hard to get software to consistently run on all machines!
As a developer, I think its great to have a TEST machine to play around with the latest versions and test for compatilbiity. That is what you as a developer should be doing. Clearly you should never do this to a production environment. I can't remember an OS that I didn't wait until the first .1 or SP1 upgrade for any production environment. And even then that is often an early adopter for production environments.
Test away and send feedback. But be reasonable in expectations on the OS. Its just like when FM is coming out with a new version. Test it, but wait for FM to come out with a v1 update before going live on a production environment.
And, if you can't afford a test machine, you can always (I hope) pay for a virtual server. There are some vendors who rent the servers by the hour, so you can make tests.
For virtual Macs you can go with pointinspace.com
For virtual PC's there are a lot but these guys rent by the hour:
You should always test before changing a deployment. This is something I am very aware of as most of my Pro clients are still running FMP12 as there is a plugin conflict with 13.
The bigger issue I see is that all new Mac machines are now shipping with Yosemite with no clear downgrade OS procedure unless you have a boot disk for previous versions already in your toolbox. This puts and new Mac sales and deployments in a very bad position.
The fact is that FMI has had access to Yosemite for months since the beta was released to developers and should have been prepared for this situation. Obviously this shows that FMI is spending more time trying to hold onto the customers it has than trying to be prepared for any new customers. Tons of other software companies have thier stuff working when they showed issues in the initial beta tests. I am sure this issue will be resolved in the very near future.
If I call up sales and say I am buying a new MacPro with 50 iMacs and 50 iPads, and need FMS and 50 FM Pro clients and 50 Go connections they will have to turn down the sale because of compatibility issues...? I suppose the thing they could offer is a download of the downgraded OSX, but I am not sure how Apple would feel about that.
Joshua Ormond schrieb: constantly release bug fixes, and cause 10 other bugs everytime. *shrug*
Joshua Ormond schrieb:
constantly release bug fixes, and cause 10 other bugs everytime. *shrug*
Great idea - don´t do anything on any bug, then you can´t produce new bugs.
ibrahim_bittar schrieb: FMI take all bug lists very seriously, when they really are a bug. Sometimes the bug is between the chair and the computer... .
FMI take all bug lists very seriously, when they really are a bug. Sometimes the bug is between the chair and the computer... .
reported three major bugs in the last months and all were confirmed by FMI, but none so far has been eliminated ... only a "workaround" was suggested, namely not to work with stylesheets for WebDirect ... another great idea: pay for new features, but better don´t use them.
I didn't say don't fix them. Windows constantly rushes out patches, just to make things work. All-in-all, FMI has done a good job in getting patch fixes right the first time. They aren't perfect, but I have yet to run into a bug that prevented me from delivering an amazing solution that works the way I and the customer expect it to. As my grandmother always said, "Do it right, or do it again".
Some things are just not possible right now. And customer's expectations need to be managed accordingly.
Well, I guess they are in a list for the next vRev, who knows?.
Can you please share with us which bugs you reported?. If you want, open a new thread so it can be searched.
Look, Intex (I'd greet you by name if you tell us your name), the whole point of this forum is collaboration. This is not online help. In the old days, before this new website, we treat each other by name because we were talking to real people, not to an alter ego. In my case I personally know many regular posters in this forum. I invite you to do so, to the extent of your possibilities.
We ALL have problems and things to solve, not just technical issues but all kind of issues and certainly we can get help here but this place is also about giving help to others.
With all due respect, I believe that if you change your tone and your attitude in this forum we all could benefit from your experience. I other posts I've read that you have many years working with FileMaker Pro.
In my case, I can easily remember your posts because there is a constant in them: You complain. Period. No help, just complain.
For example, it would be great if instead of ranting against FileMaker you could share what's wrong, what you've found and how to replicate it. Who knows?, may be someone who is closer to the FMI engineering team than us is reading your thread and can make your report go to the top of the pile of problems to solve. In the meantime we could sort out those problems and make our lives easier.
Intex, if you give anger, anger you will get. You're not the only one with problems here.
I sincerely hope you don't take my words the wrong way. I respect you and I'd love to benefit from the experience you say you have.
Just my 2¢ of Mexican pesos.
my name is Martin, my company is INtex Publishing, therefor the forum name "intex" - nothing to hide on my side, just click on my avatar.
I always posted problems prior to writing a bug report, for example:
https://fmdev.filemaker.com/message/134269#134269 - solved with great help from Christian Schmitz, but with none from FMI, was a complete show stopper
https://fmdev.filemaker.com/message/155200#155200 - confirmed by FMI - is/was a pain to work with a specific file
https://fmdev.filemaker.com/message/159005#159005 - confirmed by others and FMI - makes using stylesheets practically impossible in Webdirect
https://fmdev.filemaker.com/message/131737#131737 - just a shame ...
Maybe I have a different attitude towards this forum - I am not on the search for day-to-day help here and I admit, that I don´t offer too much help to others here too.
That is definetely not, why I am here reading and posting. For me it´s a chance to publicly share opinions, post wishes and hopes regarding FileMaker or to loudly complain about bugs, that really suck (not talking about little annoyances). Always hoping, that at least someone is listening on FMIs end and starts thinking.
Hi Martin, I'll take a look at your posts and make sure I don't have those problems in my solutions.
Thanks for sharing.
Perhaps, Wim. My point wasn't to talk solely about how much it costs me or anyone else to be a developer. My comments were directed toward doing due diligence, as you suggested, and with which I agree. I expect FMI to do the same when it's software is destined to be used on ANY existing operating system.gation to forewarn
At the very least, FMI had an obligation to forewarn their customers (and developers) that FMServer 13 is not yet compatible with Yosemite. Do you disagree with this?
This really doesn't have a bearing on the thread as I see it. I "think" I agree with you, but in this case it's not FMI who has newly released a product which has bugs in a public operating system. Just the opposite. It's Apple who released the OS which disables certain elements of FM Server 13. While some have found what seem to be viable workarounds, it doesn't mitigate that idea that FMI, as a Apple developer, be pre-advised that these problems exist.
It seems as if this thread has regenerated itself into a FMP/FMS new version w/bugs release thread instead of the fact that FMServer 13 has several issue with the new "APPLE" OS X Yosemite. They are not one in the same.
They did forewarn us Deacon. That KB was on the site the day Yosemite was released. They were not allowed to inform us before that. Now it's just a matter of development time for them to identify the cause, code a fix, and test it, test it, test it. That can take several weeks to get that right.
Deacon wrote: Perhaps, Wim. My point wasn't to talk solely about how much it costs me or anyone else to be a developer. My comments were directed toward doing due diligence, as you suggested, and with which I agree. I expect FMI to do the same when it's software is destined to be used on ANY existing operating system.gation to forewarn At the very least, FMI had an obligation to forewarn their customers (and developers) that FMServer 13 is not yet compatible with Yosemite. Do you disagree with this?
As Joshua indicated, FMI has told us as soon as was allowed.
Even if their statement at that time would have been "all ok", due diligence would dictate that you do not believe them. FMI simply does not have the manpower or test rigs to test every possible combination of server deployment, user load, feature use and anything else you may have going on.
The only true test is for you to test your solution in a sandbox. Period.
You may not have the manpower and resources to do that and that is fine, but it is something to acklnowledge and take action accordingly (as in: wait)
Wim, You have really touched on the problems here. Developers seem to have an unreal view of how the world works. I am very sure FMI has people working on this and has had people working on it as it is a serious issue for new sales. They are not sipping coffee and laughing about your clients problems. This is the real world and this is how it goes. If you want more than this hire your own team of people to start developing your own database platform that you can be assured will work. Or will it?
The other issue is something that I learned in school that has stayed with me. I had a lab professor who constatntly reminded us that the "gauge is always broken". The point of this was that everything should be double checked even the instruments you measure with should not be trusted on assumption.
I come from a mechanical engineering background and software is not much different. The best guesses are made and as much initial testing is done as possible, but still the consumers find things you did not notice. In this case people were notified of the incompatibility and that they are working on a fix and that is how it stands. Decent enough. FMI had no control over the OS changes. As they say... the stuff rolls downhill.
Would I expect that FMI is fixing more of the problems than they are, yes. Mostly this is associated with the raise in prices. I generally see it as bad if a company starts charging more and fixing less or not delivering what they promised.
Why anyone has clients that have access to upgrade an OS on a FMS when they have been told not to should really charge to setup the server on a machine that is not accessable to the client. This is likely worth the cost of the support time in my eyes even if it came out of your pocket.
Well said, both you tom and Wim.
If the client is inclined to upgrade the OS on the FMS, that tells me that likely the customer is using the machine for more than just a FMS. If it's not that, and it's IT people upgrading the OS...that tells me the ownership/management is pushing for it. And it's a good life lesson for the client to learn. It can be used to reinforce the trust that you, as the developer, knows what you are doing.
Today Apple released OS X 10.10.1. So there is hope for you folks.
At this time I upgarde my old iPad 2 to 8.1.1 .
Still broken. About half the time, on reboot, the Server comes up with
all databases closed. They cannot be opened.
Nov 20, 2014 8:35:27 AM
Could not close database "Feature Form" because it is in incorrect
Could not close database "Sears_Point_Composite_2012 Server 2" because
it is in incorrect state: Closed.
Could not close database "loclibraryServer" because it is in incorrect
Could not close database "FMServer_Sample" because it is in incorrect
Could not close database "DVD server" because it is in incorrect state:
Another copy of FileMaker Server (RCS Server iMac ) is
already running with this license. This copy of FileMaker Server will
not open any databases, but will allow updating the license key in the
Nov 20, 2014 8:13:11 AM
The FMS 13.0v5 update is now out, with both security and Yosemite fixes.
Note that the release notes state OS Yosemite - NOT OS X Yosemite Server. Hopefully FMI will make that clear - you know people will try to install OS X Yosemite Server and it may still break.
The only challenge I see if if you have a new machine with 10.10 on it and you only have an original install of FMS before 13.0v5, say 13.0v3 or v4, how are you going to do the original install? Will running say FMS 13.0v3 installer on 10.10 and then aftewards running 13.0v5 updater work on 10.10 by just running it or are there additional steps? Obviously having a full 13.0v5 DMG install would be great, but that is not what is available for download.
The FM update web site says to upgrade to 13.0v3 or v4 before running 13.0v5 updater and that it is recommended to uninstall before running a newly 10.10 updated machine. So hopefully 13.0v3 that I have will install on a 10.10 machine and then run the 13.0v5 updater and all will be good. But I want to hear that someone else did this and it worked first <grin>.
A bit tangential to the OP, but...
I have at times preferred to still install FMS on top of OSXS 10.9. In a few cases there was a need for DNS or OD, others because the server was not going to get much TLC by the client, and the ability of OSXS to easily send alerts for various error conditions has already saved some potential grief. Ideally, I would be using something else for this, like an available open source package, but I have yet to find something that is as easy to install & maintain (suggestions anyone?).
For this to work, you must first disable the Launchd plist at /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/org.apache.httpd.plist (unload with launchd & rename the plist).
Haven't tried this on Yosemite yet though. And will of course be a problem if anyone calls FMI for tech support. So YMMV.
What does this mean?
Because of a possible security exposure, the XML and PHP web publishing technologies are disabled by default. To enable these technologies, you should have a valid digital certificate installed. If you do not have your own signed certificate or if you are using the standard FileMaker certificate, then do not enable these technologies.
What is a valid digital certificate, and how do I get such a thing?
Saw that too.
They are essentially saying that a SSL cert must be installed for these protocols.
But does the update allow the use of SHA-2 encoded certs? Previous versions were still requiring SHA-1 certs, which are getting phased out.
Installing the upgrade did not fix my problem. All are closed, and will
And is it *absolutely* necessary to install a custom cert, or is it still *possible* to enable XML/PHP with the default certificate provided with FileMaker Server?
I'd also like to know a bit more about what the security issue specifically is that using a custom cert fixes. I would think any cert should encrypt properly, but you may just get a security warning about not being signed to the domain.
You can use the included certs, but you'll get those warnings from web browsers of an untrusted site.
www.SSLS.com offers Comodo certificates for $4.99 a year (5 years for $25).
However, Comodo sent me an email this last week saying they won't support SHA-1 certs anymore. But FileMaker does not support SHA-2 certs yet. That is unless the new FMS 13.0v5 update added SHA-2 support.
Looks like Server 13v5 does now support SHA-2:
Reading the FileMaker Certificates web page you cite, it references SHA-1 and SHA-256. Comodo sent me an email saying they will not support SHA-1 anymore and have to get SHA-2 in the future. Is SHA-256 a subset of SHA-2 or something?
On a WS 2012 server, I'm finding that I can't get WPE to start if "Require secure connections" is un-checked. Won't be able to test on an OSX box until tomorrow.
Changed from "checked" to "unchecked"
Yeap, SHA-2 includes SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-512/224 and SHA-512/256:
OK, good to know. I'll test out the www.SSLS.com Comodo SHA-2 certificate this weekend on my development machine to make sure it works.
Also seeing this now on an OSX system. To clarify, the GUI will initially show green for WPE, but when I hit a CWP page the status goes yellow.
Enabling Require secure connections clears up the issue.
page 138 and on
Retrieving data ...