Save and export is a deal killer.

The sliders are slow, ugly with redundant slider and arrows-- and are an issue when you are doing much work with limited time. Some of the recategorizations of tools and filters are a bit more logical-- I could get used to that.

I hate to fuss when most everyone is so so pleased and patient.

Yes, 2.4 to 2.6 was a larger change-- and that is when it jumped the shark.

A lot stopped working-- or became photoshop-lite. Lassos became a headache, tear-off menus were iffy. It became less reliable. Set-up became a major chore.

Newer is not always better. I don't like 2.8-- and I hate the Gimp site which is obtuse and unhelpful-- and poorly designed.

There are artists who always want the latest thing-- the fanciest supplies etc.

They are usually the dilettantes who fail to learn the basics.

Ability to work on RAW images and some other specialized uses improved in later versions. (Layer work and gradients became less intuitive, though.)

Documentation has never been hot; learning required much work.

BTW-- Flickr just jumped the shark with its recent redesign. Yahoo wants its customers to have a richer experience, I suppose.

It is bound to be a big success. For me, it sucks, so I quit it.

Won't be polishing up photos with any software for awhile anyway.

Only if you're a dumb arse.

I suppose I asked for it by being a critic.

I am not alone in missing the older GIMP. I wish it hadn't evolved in a direction that eliminated choice.

I hope one day, a smart person will fork or create a new app that will be superior to what GIMP has become.

Goodbye.