The Myth of the Bad Ubuntu Release

OK, so there’s something that always disturbs me when release time comes around. Here’s a rough chronology of every Ubuntu release (at least since I’ve been involved, so that goes back to Breezy Badger) and what the “buzz” around the internet says:

  1. Alphas come out: buzz says,  “not much to see here folks, move along.”
  2. Beta comes out: buzz says, “wow, great release, but where’s the new artwork?” and I’m thinking “How on earth can the pull this off?”
  3. RC rolls around: buzz says, “new awesomeness right around the corner!” and I’m thinking “darn it, there’s a lot more to do.”
  4. Release day: buzz says, “OMG I have to download this” and I’m thinking “phew, that’s over, I’m glad I rsync’d/zsync’d yesterday”
  5. The week after a release: buzz says, “Noooooo, this is the worst Ubuntu release EVER!” and I’m thinking “wow, they really did pull it off”
  6. Rinse and Repeat

Now, with that rough release chronology, I want to look at #5 a little bit more. I don’t consider myself particularly a diehard Ubuntu fanboy. I’ve been an Ubuntu developer for a few years, but I’ve mostly had to step back due to time constraints. I’ve gotten (much to my dismay and consternation) a bit of a reputation as being the “Devil’s Advocate” and a vocal critic of Canonical. This is mostly due to intense burn out, but that’s a subject for another post. My point here is that I’m not just blindly in love with everything Canonical and Ubuntu does.

I’m quite convinced, having participated in every Ubuntu release since Breezy Badger, that the “This Ubuntu release is the worst ever. <some previous release> was so much better!” sentiment stems from two factors:

  1. it’s “true” because people say it is. If you read 20 “I’m not happy with this release because …” or “Argg, I’m going back to release X because Y is broken!” you’d get the impression that things are really in bad shape. The problem is that you don’t see the 20,000 people for whom the new release is just fine. People naturally expend more effort complaining than they do praising. This is similar to watching the news on TV. You get more ratings for telling people how awful the world is than talking about the good things that happen.
  2. the same software affects different people differently. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people say a new Ubuntu release is trash because one particular piece of hardware now doesn’t work right or behaves differently. What in fact is most likely occurring is that the absolute number of people having problems doesn’t change dramatically, but the parts of the user population that experience these “critical FAIL” moments shifts as code changes.  I’m willing to bet for every person that has more problems with Karmic Koala than Jaunty Jackalope, there is another who has the opposite experience. I know that for  me and my Intel video card, Karmic is a blessing. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that in a release or two people will be looking back at Karmic Koala as one of the best Ubuntu (and Linux) releases.

So my conclusion, for what it’s worth, is that while some Ubuntu releases are a bit better than others, this periodic buzz around the internet that the latest Ubuntu release is an epic FAIL is a self-perpetuating myth, mostly caused by people needing something to complain or write about.


58 thoughts on “The Myth of the Bad Ubuntu Release

  1. Pingback: Jordan Mantha (laserjock) 's status on Thursday, 05-Nov-09 02:19:08 UTC -

    • ubuntu epic fails are not myths but proven truth.

      usually, their releases are unworkable for 3 months, until they make necessary bug fixing.

      i would say that people realize the uglyness of ubuntu with every new release, but fail to move to something else because of lazyness and habit.

      having rolling release like pclinuxos is much better solution

  2. Karmic has some great points that I really like. Ie:
    – Gnome 2.28 is great: it does look nice!
    – Firefox and openoffice updates are usefull
    – KDE 4.3 is great. I’m thinking of switching to kubuntu.

    Issues I have with karmic
    1. bad video corruption in wine, so Quantrix which I use under wine is unuseable at present due to video corruption (and therfore I cannot use it for work).
    2. Amarok 2.2 dropped shoutcast. This really cripples amarok for me, so I must either downgrade to amarok 2.0 or use exaile.

    In short – one showstopper for me, and one irritant, so overall not a bad release. Perhaps the release could have been delayed a bit to resolve graphics issues that some seem to be having.

    I use 9.04 for work, and 9.10 for home.

    • Amarok did _not_ drop Shoutcast support. All we did was removing the “Shoutcast Directory” service, which we had to remove for legal reasons.

      Shoutcast streams continue to play fine, and people are invited to write a Shoutcast Directory Amarok-Script.

      Mark Kretschmann
      Amarok Developer –

      • I understand the legal reasons why shoutcast was removed. I checked the TOS and it is bad. There isn’t anything even close to the shoutcast directory at present. I will gladly abandon shoutcast as soon as a good alternative is available. Until then, I’m not going to update Mint Gloria which I also run at home, or 9.04 at work.

        Amarok 2.2 does look great though.

        There is a bug in the way karmic handles www. It’s extremely slow – almost unuseable. I thought it was the isp, but Mint Gloria flies yet.

  3. I don’t know about others, but my Ubuntu 9.10 laptop (clean installation) is performing pretty well.

    Empathy is better than pidgin. Period. Hibernate and Stand-By worked just like windows. Awesome experience.

    By blue-tooth can successfully transfer file to/fro my mobile phones.

    Battery life was better in 9.10 version.

    I couldn’t have asked for more. Thanks guys!

  4. using karmic on a test machine since alpha 4 no big problems.

    My Upgrade from Jaunty went fine all working
    the only change is that qemu does not use kqemu module

    For me Karmic is the best ubuntu release ever .

    • I’m running Ubuntu 9.10 on a much older computer and it runs decently. I have a PIII 700Mhz processor with only 256MB of RAM. The only difference I have seen from 9.04 is that local videos I play using Totem or MPlayer skips every so often. I’m hoping that will get fixed in future updates.

  5. I also think that lots of people are plain unreasonable and come to expect too much out of any Linux release.

    To begin with, expecting that any Linux new release should provide a second life to your 8 year old laptop or else it is the biggest pile of crap ever, that´s pushing it a bit too far. I wish those people tried the same concept with Windows 7 or Mac OS snow leopard.

    I also believe some people confuse releases with application functionality. There is a good example in this page from another poster, who´s using Amarok to judge Ubuntu Karmic. It is obvious that Amarok is an application, specific from the KDE project, and if it does not work like version 2.0, I don´t see how that could be a release failure for Ubuntu. Either version 2.2 is working differently, or it has a bug, or simply the interaction of both ubuntu and amarok is contributing to that user experience. I don´t think any linux release should be judged based on a single application not working as it used to, specially if that application is not “native” on either GTK2 or QT.

    As for me, my installation of Karmic was flawless. It is much faster than it´s ever been, my external wireless card was installed fine for the first time, with no need for compat-wireless. I think it looks great, very professional, and everything is much more responsive and functional. I agree that GNOME2.28 looks and works great, which helps (hope they don´t screw up with GNOME3!!!)

    • based upon ubuntu, breathes new life into old hardware which would be unusable with a gnome/kde-desktop.

  6. I’m one of those having trouble with upgrading to this release, and my thoughts on the subject is that we need more testing. More people should install/upgrade to the RC, and I think for that to happen Ubuntu need to be a bit more ready when the RC comes out.

    • I put 2 bug numbers in this thread and you’ll notice that both bugs still present in the final release were reported well before the final version, one 1 month before. They were also not mentioned in the release notes, even though they were both confirmed.

      So I think testing and bug reporting before the RC stage is not the problem. I guess the ubuntu team is flooded by bugs and cannot act on all of them, even given 1 month time.

      • Alpha 5-ish is a better time to report bugs that aren’t showstoppers if you want them to be acted upon. Also, confirming a bug doesn’t get it into release notes. Adding an ubuntu release notes task to the bug is what does that.

        Karmic’s fine for me. Has been since alpha 1. Uh…ok fine Kubuntu’s network manager was broken around alpha 2 or 3, but I wasn’t using network manager anyway.

  7. As always there’s some good and bad in this release. I run it on 2 machines: one with intel graphics, where karmic is an absolute blessing.

    My other machine is a big pain though: the meta package I used to install kde got renamed or vanished, so the upgraded wanted to remove all sorts of crazy stuff (it’s partly my fault, because I didn’t use the standard kubuntu-desktop package) and I have a lot of dns problems on that machine now, which I couldn’t fix so far.

    That last kind of bug is really bad, it makes someone less tech save then me say “internet doesn’t work, linux sucks”

    I think the reason for #5 lies with regressions. People have settled in which bits work and which bits don’t. If an upgrade fixes some of the bits that didn’t use to work, then that’s fun, but if stuff they knew worked goes pear shaped they assume this release is worse than the previous one, because “internet used to work and now it doesn’t”

    I have had regressions, some worse than others, in each upgrade, and I’ve been going along since dapper.

  8. I firmly believe that every release should come with a BIG announcement saying:

    “Please test live-cd _thoroughly_ before upgrading. If something does not work and this will cause you endless anger, DO NOT upgrade. Wait for next release. Thank you.”

  9. @Walter

    Amarok 2.2 dropped Shoutcast support because of the new Terms of Service that Shoutcast has put up which makes it completely impossible for any FOSS app to integrate their service without being in violation.

    If you can get Shoutcast to chge this, we will happilly bring it back. You should see other players dropping Shoutcast support as well.

    IMO, if that is how Shoutcast wants to play it, then fine, we will just not send listeners their way and promote free alternatives like Icecast instead…

    • Is there something you can reccommend users to do to try to get shoutast to change their tos? I’m willing to send a email but would want a clear summary of the issues and perhaps a suggested tos change that would meet both foss and shoutcast’s needs. Maybe there’s need for a lawyer to iron this issue out. Has anyone tried to contact shoutcast?

  10. I started using ubuntu at 5.10 (the second release) and dist-upgraded until 9.04.
    i clean-installed 9.10 and:

    * my (PPPoE) internet connection is not working

    * 3d effects are broken for my r200 graphics card

    No release note and no fix for both basic issues (3d is on by default for r200). For PPPoE it’s fixed in a PPA but not in the real version yet. Both are regressions.

    I think ubuntu should increase the amount of work done on:

    1. handling regressions
    2. handling basic computer work:
    – working of graphics
    – working of network

    Well anyway for me 9.10 is a complete fail like other releases before were not. Though 9.04 had a pretty bad bug for me:

    and it took ages to get fixed by a SRU.

  11. Not talking to the commenters, but to the people that scream “FAIL”:

    You didn’t try the LiveCD to see if the features work?

    You didn’t back up first?

    You think that the new version has been tested with all your crazy hardware, so you don’t bother to check the wikis and forums first?

    And without doing all this, you did an in-place upgrade?

    Some of these people are just crazy. They think every bleeding-edge feature will work flawlessly, and it just ain’t so!

    • I was going through the installation guide the other day, and I noticed that it explicitly argues in favor of in-place upgrades.

      The sorts of troubles I’ve had with Ubuntu upgrades in the past would not have been revealed by testing with the LiveCD, as most of the difficulties have been subtle problems with particular applications. For all but the most zealous, booting from the LiveCD will demonstrate whether your machine can boot up and launch the GUI.

      I’m often bemused by the advice, “back up your data first,” because properly backing up data is NOT simple, few individuals or even institutions have effective backup methodologies, and the advice appears so often that it becomes background noise.

      All in all, it’s not at all crazy that people did in-place upgrades, and most people who did so did without much difficulty.

  12. I see the same things you do.

    I was very happy with this release. It was the first time the compiz stuff has felt snappy enough to actually use (I don’t have underpowered machines, just it has always felt a little clunky). My laptop now resumes (it used to only suspend).

    Audio is great, I used to get little pops every now and again. I haven’t noticed any yet, and I way enjoying listening to stuff so much that I realised how bad my internal soundcard was, so I plugged in an old usb one, and it worked straight away, with me just going into the volume settings and redirecting the output to it.

    I’ve noticed some minor regressions, but on the surface they look like the sort of things I could patch over the weekend… so if time allows, these will be a non-issue after a while.


  13. My comments are related to 9.10 & on Kubuntu.

    I think there is not such a myth but actual expectations that are not met at the release time.

    The upgrade CD image (through an USB pen drive prepared) does not even run on my main PC (which runs 9.04 with latest updates)for the 64 bits version and on my children PC (which runs Ubuntu 9.04) for the 32 bits version. So I cannot even test before upgrading.
    This is a major issue for a release and for spreading a distribution. I have already faced this with Ubuntu & Kubuntu in the past.
    After such an experience, a new user in such a case would never try any further to switch to an Ubuntu derivative.
    (* On my 2 netbooks, by the opposite, both the Ubuntu Moblin Remix and the Netbook Kubuntu ran and got installed pretty easily. *)

    What I have done in the last 4 releases was to wait for more or less one month after the official date, and faced little issues to install them on my boxes.

  14. This upgrade was a FAIL for me. It took me three days to straighten out the problems and some of the fixes are only temporary. The author of this article is correct about the release pattern.

    I will not be an “early adopter” of the next release. In fact, I think the a solution to this might be to skip an upgrade, wait six months until the next release, and then upgrade to the skipped release.

    Does Fedora have this kind of track record?

  15. This article is spot on.

    One more thing: Microsoft don’t test their OS’s on every possible hardware on this planet, the manufacturers do, and provide the drivers. And the manufacturer of the finished computer test that the OS and the third party drivers work together.

    Canonical have none of that! They have to support all of the hardware combinations existing in the world themselves! That there are only a few hundred people in total complaining over the internet means that they are doing an amazing job! Ubuntu got right the hardware of how many other MILLIONS? And without a single “drivers CD”.

    So in short, before installing, test with a live CD to make sure that Canonical managed to GUESS your system right, and hope that in the near future we reach critical mass and the OEMs start doing all of the hard work they are doing for Windows for Linux too.

  16. @ Don Birdsall, Does Fedora have this kind of track record? Oh yes! Fedora is more bleeding edge and breakages do happen, well at least that is my experience with Fedora.

    I have been using Ubuntu for 5 years, 5.10 was my first and I used to upgrade up until 7.04. After that I have done clean installs and I haven’t had any issues. I have to admit that I am enjoying Karmic and all the issues I had been experiencing I ironed out by myself, such as the correct h-sync and v-sync for my new widescreen TFT.

  17. Are you kidding me? There is no myth about it. Ubuntu was, at one time, a very solid distro. I’m talking the days of Breezy Badger. Since then, Ubuntu has drastically gone downhill in the quality department. Since then, Ubuntu has been on this mission to be more and more bleeding edge and the releases have degraded quite a bit.

    Second, when claim to be the easiest to use distro on the planet, something they’ve never even come close to being, you should expect some level of disappointment when it doesn’t come true – when people have problems.

    On the subject of Fedora, it’s a highly developed distro. It’s not Ubuntu, where real development and innovation isn’t really taking place. Fedora is backed by the deep pockets of Red Hat to develop open source projects that are game changers in Linux such as the Plymouth project. Fedora is expected to be buggy because it’s the most bleeding edge distro of all.

  18. Pingback: The Myth of the Bad Ubuntu Release | Ubuntu-News - Your one stop for news about Ubuntu

  19. Not a whole lot to it, really. What % of people had problems overall with the upgrade? I bet pretty low. However Ubuntu’s install base is so huge now that the # of people complaining about the upgrade when it breaks for them is very high.

    Comparatively, how many people had a completely smooth upgrade (like me), but failed to post about it? I’m just so completely used to Ubuntu’s smooth upgrades that I don’t even bother to comment on it anymore.

    I would also bet that a huge % of the complainers did something nonstandard which caused the upgrade to break.

  20. Pingback: Juanjo (reidrac) 's status on Thursday, 05-Nov-09 19:38:09 UTC -

  21. its not a myth.

    i don’t blame ubuntu devs.

    i think 6 months is not enough to get enough development + qa.

    if you read the release notes of the last few releases, you see things that would be marked as not ready to ship.

    lately the regressions in recent releases have been major. Intel graphics, PulseAudio are the 2 biggest ones, but numerous little ones too if look around affecting powermanagement, netbook compatibility & others always crop up.

    I don’t blame ubuntu, they are dependent on upstreams which don’t fit neatly into their 6 month window.

    as of right now, other distros appear to be handling release management better in my opinion.

    I’ve read a few comments saying “Wait for Mint”, which is a kick in the teeth for Ubuntu devs. That sort of leads me to my original point about the release cycle compromising testing & polish.

  22. I share the thougths on buzz. I already heard people complaining this dont work anymore, that fails. But i know people who used the releases from first RC and have no-to-one fails to report.
    It it also a big problem, that people are lazy to try the last beta and RC-s, and only rush in on release so the wider audience who could be a bigger testing mass only uses the product after released.

    I have to admit i like ubuntu and advocate it, except hardy server in combination with ocfs2 or samba. I used it for almost a year and found a lot of kernel related issues where the bug report ended in “try the next release, which is out now” but thats not the way of an LTS… I also had critical kernel oops-es related to ocfs2 in the server kernels up to jaunty, but machines who does not use ocfs2 are happily running ever since. Samba was crasing in Hardy for us, and lot of processes got misterious USR1 signals, which wanished after upgrading to Intrepid which runs AGAIN happily ever.

    I know people tend to measure a release on the applications they find failing, but hey, they are users, and they like to rely on packaged software, and don’t know how to recompile ocfs2 support, or samba.

    I had lots of discussions with my co-worker about “Ubuntu is getting more worse with every release”, but i don’t think so. Beause there are many improvements that sould be counted too.

  23. Pingback: Links 05/11/2009: KDevelop Beta 6, ApacheCon Coverage | Boycott Novell

  24. Pingback: Roy (linuxcanuck) 's status on Friday, 06-Nov-09 02:57:42 UTC -

  25. To be honest, this is the best release ever! haha. Everything, but really everything works from a incredible fast installation and even more incredible startup time. The only little thing I tripped about, is the proxy support in Empathy and Ubuntu One. But only the MSN plugin doesnt seem to work with the proxy, so who cares :D. Specially the new shell startup time is an incredible improvement.

    But you are right, you only hear the 20 persons how have a problem. I have to admit, I never upgrade, I always reinstall to avoid problems 🙂

  26. “What in fact is most likely occurring is that the absolute number of people having problems doesn’t change dramatically”

    Slight nitpick, I’m not sure you can say absolute since Ubuntu is growing its userbase all the time, perhaps relative ?

    The problem as I see it is that Ubuntu is marketed as the ‘easy’ distro, the one for the people. If this is to be the case, then there has to be far less emphasis on new features and more on bug fixing and consolidation, even if that is at the expense of the six month cycle.

    Some might say install the LTS if you want stability, but when a new user comes to what’s the first thing they see but the latest? It’s either one or the other, either present them with the LTS, or have clear disclaimers and warnings about running a potentially unstable o/s.

    Also, dist-upgrades should not be enabled by default. Most users (as opposed to slightly technical users) will not understand the potential dangers involved – once again, here lies a disconnect between what we (the technical users) know, and what the targeted marketbase, the non-technical user knows.

    Personally I’ve used nothing but Ubuntu since the very first days of it’s first release. I’ve several times experienced problems and small niggles on upgrades or fresh installs myself, and I have no problem with those, nothing is or can be perfect.

    However this time, I believe there has been one very serious failing in Karmic. Not minor stuff like slow internet etc which are fairly easily resolvable (caveat once again – reasonably technical users Vs targeted userbase), but the serious problem with 3g usb modems.
    A late kernel change caused this failure, it was bugged weeks before release, many people made specific note of how important it was that it be fixed, but Karmic was still released regardless, and without even a mention in the release notes!

    These modems are used in their hundreds of thousands if not millions in Europe, most especially with laptops and netbooks, and are the SOLE means of access to the web. This means that any of these non-technical users who upgraded or did a complete install without having the savvy to run a live cd to test, etc, have been completely left high and dry with what are now basically fancy typewriters. They have no means even to either inquire as to what’s going on, let alone install a fix.

    This I’m afraid is very, very serious. I’ve personally converted 14 people to Ubuntu. Every single one of them use 3g, every single one of them would have completely lost web access had they upgraded. Luckily enough I’d turned off notifications for dist-upgrades. But five of them still went ahead and downloaded the latest and have been left up the proverbial creek. They cannot even download Jaunty so as to reinstall that. What excuses cab be made to people like these? The vast majority of those who run netbooks (Ubuntu Netbook) surely use 3g too.

    I’m hugely embarrassed that Karmic could have been released with such an enormous bug (or regression or whatever you want to call it) as this, and I think it calls into serious question the efficacy of the entire six-month cycle and the bug escalation process. I have no time for MS or Apple, and I’m well aware of the Win7 upgrade problems and the like that have been occuring there, but I’m finding it hard to imagine they would have released an O/S with a bug that knocks out web access for an entire category of hardware.

    This is on an entirely different scale from trivial popping soundcard or specific app problems and I have yet to see any communication from Canonical to even acknowlege it, let alone a fix.

  27. Pingback: Aanjhan Ranganathan (tuxmaniac) 's status on Friday, 06-Nov-09 12:24:53 UTC -

  28. Each to their own, Patrick. I’ve converted similar numbers to Ubuntu and not a single one has, nor will ever use, 3G.

    Or if they do, it’ll be bluetooth to their mobile phone, which works beautifully in my experience on both Jaunty (with Blueman) or Karmic (built in Bluez).

    You should link the bug report so that we can support your efforts to get this fixed if you think the bug is affecting so widespread an install base.

  29. Pingback: Jordan Mantha: The Myth of the Bad Ubuntu Release | TuxWire : The Linux Blog

  30. Pingback: Ubuntu 9.10 Works Well (and So Does the Microsoft Propaganda Machine) | Boycott Novell

  31. The DNS resolver issue is critical in my opinion. It was identified early on, and may not be easy for noobs to solve: even I am reluctant to try to resolve this. It seems to be a packaging issue: why not just note that the issue is more complicated and may need more thought before installing a proper fix, and in the meantime go back to the old DNS resolver?

    This issue also raises questions regarding Ubuntu’s release policy – ship on time no matter what. Maybe a clearer policy on what issues should delay a release is required. Unuseable internet seems to be very critical to me.

  32. Pingback: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala: the worst Ubuntu ever? » Help Desk Screeds

  33. Pingback: Roy (linuxcanuck) 's status on Monday, 09-Nov-09 13:04:29 UTC -

  34. I’m a bit of an “odd man out” here I guess. I installed Karmic on three laptops, one of which was an upgrade, and two virtualbox virtual machines.

    The upgraded version limped for a few boots, then stopped functioning completely and needed a clean install. All three clean installs have various problems: suspend and hibernate don’t work, boot up is flaky, X does weird things on no particular schedule. Generally, a hard reset is the only way to get the system back. This is not good. And no, they weren’t all installed from the same CD.

    One of the vm’s I’d been running since early alphas, and it had the problems you’d expect, but updates worked and things progressed. Then the update to RC just totally and completely trashed that install in a way I’d never seen before. After a clean install, it’s running beautifully, but I never use suspend on the vm.

    Yesterday I downloaded and installed a 64-bit version. Still no suspend that works on that machine, and sometimes booting is fine and sometimes it gives me a flashing command line login that’s nonfunctional. Hard reset required to regain control. All very bizarre.

    I’ve been using Ubuntu since Dapper and wouldn’t consider anything else. But I have really never had this number of problems with a new version. Really. It’s not all in my head.

    Maybe upstart was let off the reservation before it was ready. Maybe something else is the problem. Either way, though, it makes it hard to tell people to get with the (good) program and ditch Windows.

  35. Let me preface this by saying that I am not exactly a fan of Ubuntu. I tend to go more for the likes of Fedora, Gentoo, and Arch, or even vanilla Debian Testing over Ubuntu. I only installed it at all as I like to try out all the mainstream distros as a hobby.

    Given that, I am finding Kubuntu 9.10 very nice. Everything “just worked” since I installed it in early beta, and I have kept it upgraded ever since with nary a problem. Not even audio or GRUB 2 (two common complaints). Not my kind of disto overall, but very stable and one I’d recommend to non-technical friends without hesitation (though I’d certainly recommend trying the live CD first to make sure it worked with all their hardware!)

  36. As of the latest update nov 23, all my concerns regarding karmic have been resolved (except shoutcast for amarok). kernel is Gnome is 2.28.1. seems like everything is running again – even wine. MS Access 2003 runs with winetricks. i tried a lot of other distros that were released in the last few months but keep coming back to ubuntu. i’ll use 9.10 for work now.


  37. Pingback: Karmic NO es una mala versión « Gnometips

  38. I believe that some release of ubuntu is not that appealing. If you are an ordinary user, you’d probably get stuck on some stuff. One example is playing of mp3’s, avi’s, etc… I don’t get why it’s not preinstalled with the package…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s