02.22.10
Gemini version available ♊︎What Windows Home Server and OOXML Have in Common: They Corrupt Data
Summary: Data corruption glitches inherent and more likely with Microsoft’s sub-standard products that do not comply with industry standards
TWO YEARS ago I called Windows Home Server (WHS) “data corruption server” because it turned out that its unique feature (or antifeature) was that it silently destroyed people’s data rather than make backups like it was supposed to. We wrote about the disaster which is Windows Home Server around that time; it’s built upon pretty much the same codebase that makes up Vista 7.
According to this very extensive new review of the Asus TS Mini Windows Home Server, GNU/Linux is still miles ahead of Microsoft when it comes to so-called “home servers” (Microsoft terminology for the most part). To quote some portions of the text:
Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices are essentially small servers designed for use in the home, but generally use modified versions of Linux. It was only a matter of time before Microsoft got in on the action with Windows Home Server (WHS), which it introduced in 2007.
Most NAS devices run Linux on hardware based around embedded processors from manufacturers such as Marvell or Freescale, typically based on the ARM design. WHS, on the other hand, will run on standard PC hardware based around Intel or AMD x86 processors.
[...]
Linux is the obvious choice since many distributions are free and its reliability is well-documented. Installing, configuring and maintaining Linux can be a time consuming hassle though, even if you’re already familiar with the OS.
[...]
Overall, Asus’s Home Server TS Mini is a disappointment. The hardware’s clumsy design makes adding or replacing a hard disk more difficult than it has to be. Asus’ WHS plug-ins don’t add much value either, although these can always be updated in future or just replaced with alternatives of your choosing. The sluggish performance is particularly disappointing though, limiting the TS Mini’s usefulness.
All of this is a shame, since the WHS OS clearly has much potential, but it’s not without its flaws either. It’s disappointing that almost three years after its launch, there aren’t easily accessible printer sharing options or RAID support.
There is one area where the failure of Windows Home Server is similar to that of OOXML. According to this new post from Rob Weir, Microsoft Office has data corruption problems that affect OOXML.
In this post I take a look at Microsoft’s claims for robust data recovery with their Office Open XML (OOXML) file format. I show the results of an experiment, where I introduce random errors into documents and observe whether word processors can recover from these errors. Based on these result, I estimate data recovery rates for Word 2003 binary, OOXML and ODF documents, as loaded in Word 2007, Word 2003 and in OpenOffice.org Writer 3.2.
My tests suggest that the OOXML format is less robust than the Word binary or ODF formats, with no observed basis for the contrary Microsoft claims. I then discuss the reasons why this might be expected.
It is not exactly surprising because OOXML has corruption written all over it, but Microsoft’s crimes aside, there are clearly some technical deficiencies. Microsoft does not build software for robustness. The London Stock Exchange found this out the hard way [1, 2]. People inside Microsoft know this too. █
‘Eller and his team had written what they felt was some very good Windows code. When Konzen came over he appeared to want to counter this impression—he told the Windows team their code was garbage. They had completely misengineered the system, he said.
‘”These Apple guys really know their graphics,” Konzen told Eller.
‘”They’re better, faster, and simply easier to use. You chimps working on Windows don’t have a clue.”‘
–Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, a book composed
by the daughter of Microsoft’s PR mogul
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Jose_X said,
February 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Rob’s experiment was to attempt to test Microsoft’s various claim that OOXML is more robust to errors than is .doc.
To conduct the tests, Rob purposely corrupted various files in various ways and contrasted OOXML, .doc, and ODF. He looked at how MS Office and OpenOffice handled these corrupted files.
Overall, it appears Microsoft’s claim might not hold up. Also ODF and OpenOffice did fairly well.
LinuxToday linked to this yesterday and there are some comments there that highlight some of the results. http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010022100435OSMSSD
Yuhong Bao said,
February 22, 2010 at 3:17 pm
These are different kinds of data corruption, however.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Of course.
Also, formats and software are not exactly the same.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I notice that opponents of ODF are still using diversion to avoid the truly important issues (the “IBM is evil” defence). Some hours ago I received the following:
Robotron 2084 said,
February 22, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Naturally, most peoples predictions are based on where they stand on various issues. However, the extremist makes no predictions toward their enemy. Rather they simply declare guilt when the facts are lacking, or even in spite of them.
I have no ill feelings toward Microsoft, so I first suspected (not declared) the problems at the London Stock Exchange were due to the “TradElec” software designed by a company called Accenture. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a man after Roy’s own heart, citied a “.NET Crash” in one of his headlines despite the fact no one reported that to be the problem. Chalk that up to blogger vs journalist, I suppose.
According to a follow-up article at computer world: the LSE said it would not point the finger of blame at Accenture. It said TradElect was not at the source of the problem. Later a networking problem was given as the cause of the outage.
Jose_X Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
What people need to note as well is that most and/or many more stock exchanges use Linux. The one or among the very few notable ones that used Microsoft technology ended up with network problems on various occasions and also was slower. At least these are details I think I remember.
SJVN and others also jumped on the LSE failures in part because Microsoft had been selling the LSE as a prime reason to go with MSdotnet. And it’s not everyday that a major stock exchange has the kinds of problems LSE experienced.
It would be surprising, then, for Microsoft not to have helped out that situation in some way (eg, providing consultation, specialized optimizations or libraries, discounts, etc). It would be even more surprising to think Microsoft’s software had nothing to do with the problems. Keep in mind that Microsoft already has a reputation, and people testing both platforms for high performance and reliability tend to go with Linux — even when costs are not a major constraint (although if you can get more software for less, you can afford more hardware). Don’t overlook this either: http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/osfam . Of the top 500 supercomputers in the world, Microsoft has 5 spots while Linux has 446 (including some systems that trounce Microsoft’s best entry).
BTW, note that the LSE themselves didn’t say “let us fix the bugs of the code”. They bought a new totally different solution that avoided Microsoft technology entirely. And they paid decent money for this (functionally) duplicate technology. So they didn’t try to spend money (even with a healthy budget) to improve their existing situation, nor did they try simply to adjust their future purchasing while retaining legacy. This speaks volumes.
And it is also not surprising Microsoft would not be shamed in public. Microsoft might be a desktop partner or even sue for defamation (eg, Microsoft uses NDAs liberally and is a very aggressive “partner” with supposedly huge bank accounts and levers).
Given all of this, let me repeat, it seems likely that the underlying technology has some problems believed to be unfixable in the near term. I mean, aren’t there other major dotnet vendors that could have stepped in? Microsoft, themselves, could have stepped in to save the day if their was a near-term salvation, but they didn’t.
My point is that the benefit of the doubt can’t keep lying with Microsoft over and over against what statistics suggest (even if there could be reasons).
As for “extremists” biased towards Linux and “consequently” clearly wrong to a large degree:
Microsoft has been at their unethical games and has been producing software with various types of glaring flaws (at least when it comes to various types of applications) for many many years. It’s unfair to criticize people here as if they did not have good reasons to be upset. I would love a compromise (eg, some give Microsoft more credit while others give them less), because among the compromise would have to exist a condition where desktop market share lies much more towards Linux than is the case today. Linux is very comparable to Windows overall and is a heck of a lot cheaper over the years. Also, most of its “faults” have more to do with the trade secret nature of and levers being exercised by the dominant platform.
And, yes, Microsoft software can/does lead in a number of ways, but you’d expect such a wealthy company as Microsoft (and its partners) to spend on polish and marketing much more than the traditionally small Linux companies or users (unfortunately, at the expense of other things). With more market share, and hence money, moving to the Linux side, Linux will clean up the loose ends much more and move forward even faster. Linux has at least gotten to the point that a major new ambitious and promising player has emerged to compete on the desktop (Google).
Jose_X Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Let me add that a “network problem” can in fact be a dotnet failure (or multiple ones or a run into limits of the software, etc).
In any case, I’m not denying that there is jumping to conclusions by “extremists”; however, over time it won’t just be bloggers and extremists. Neutral customers also will start to avoid certain companies or software or classes of software after they get burned one time too many. This has worked against both Linux and Microsoft.
The main difference is that Microsoft has much more lock-in and huge revenue streams (anchored by monopolies held in part by unethical/illegal practices) so they can overcome huge mistakes [Microsoft themselves admitted this much when it came to their software’s lock-in keeping their revenues in place: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/25/ms-definition-of-embrace-and-extend/ “You could argue that the [Windows] API is too hard to use, that not every library is as fast as it should be, or other serious imperfections… it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cast to using a different operating system instead… In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.”].
Meanwhile, Linux is open, so Linux overcomes mistakes because there is no single or terminal point of failure, and both new and old users/developers/sellers simply keep improving it and adjusting their techniques.
Robotron 2084 Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Your first reply was fine and presents some interesting points without going off-topic too soon, but still WAY too long.
Besides that, I wouldn’t expect you to agree on the problems with Linux/FOSS extremists. Your past history on this website and others coupled with the extensive amount of time you put into Linux easily puts you into that category. Any views you have would be heavily tainted.
your_friend said,
February 23, 2010 at 2:19 am
I’m not sure why anyone would think NAS is a chore.
The same and worse could be said of WHS if a person were to try to build it from scratch themselves. Installing and configuring a NAS with GNU/Linux is no more difficult than installing GNU/Linux for any purpose. If there are problems, it’s thanks to Microsoft’s continued efforts to make hardware painful. Once it’s up, there’s next to no maintaining to be done, it just works, and there’s a wealth of good applications to learn for your tasks. Windows, on the other hand, is notoriously difficult to install from scratch and sucks life once you have it. The fact of the matter is that most people have a GNU/Linux box already – it’s their WAP, their TV, their phone and many other appliances they can take for granted because they require less upkeep than a toaster. Microsoft’s recent patent attack on a NAS maker shows that Microsoft is running scared of it’s technically superior competitors. Free software is easier no matter how you get it, but it is zero effort when it comes out of a box working they way you want. Microsoft is not going to catch up anytime soon.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I think Melco is a good example here. Microsoft reportedly sued them to sign a patent deal.
uberVU - social comments said,
February 24, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Identica by schestowitz: What #Windows Home #Server and #OOXML Have in Common: They Corrupt Data http://boycottnovell.com/2010/02/22/windows-data-corruption-server/…