Personally, I remain in favor of the GIMP as an installation default, but I do feel the need to play the voice of dissent for a moment, while everyone rails against Ubuntu for 'losing the plot'.
To the contrary, anyone who's been following Ubuntu's development for a while will see that this falls right in the line with the direction Ubuntu's been heading since the beginning. Ubuntu's aim has always been market-share, and i don't mean that in a greedy, corporate sense. Ubuntu has, to my mind at least, always been the 'missionary linux', bringing the 'truth' of free and open source software to the masses.
Just like a missionary in the real world, Ubuntu has appraised their target market, the crossover linux user, having only recently left the windows-only 'heathen' lifestyle. So in what way will Ubuntu encounter the most success in this goal? by presenting familiar, simple-to-understand options, and the added benefits of a vast array of free software and enhanced security and stability.
On the other hand, GIMP's aim has always been to provide a FOS alternative to the power-house image editing softwares (and i'll say they're doing a damn fine job.) but imagine if every version of windows dropped Paint in favor of Photoshop. To the artistically inclined and the power-users, i know this sounds great, a dream come true, but imagine the untrained user, dear Oma and Opa wanting to rotate, resize, or crop an image and being confounded by such a dazzling array of options, most of which are meaningless to them. (Layers? I thought only ogres had layers!)
The decision to drop GIMP from the default install has raised a lot of hubbub with fans of the GIMP and Ubuntu nay-sayers, but in reality this decision is inevitable as the 2 projects progress, and is, rather than an affront, a measure of the success of both.
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. - T. A. Edison
http://www.grendelchen.com/ | brummbaer456 at gmail dot com