I'm not so sure.
I have been using FF for quite some time and while I agree it lacks in its resource management, I do not believe it is a POS that everyone is leading it to be. I do not have CPU spike problems. Even going to FB. At any normal moment, I can have 3+ FF windows open with 3-4+ tabs in each. My processor doesn't go above 3-10% usage (even on Facebook). Granted, it does take up 300+MB of Memory.
But I completely disagree what you say about judging from one website. Just because Facebook is not super smooth, should not mean the end of the world for a browser. We do not judge a PC by a single program. Maybe there is some fault on Facebook's end? They keep adding features and changing things. Linux advocates of all people should understand that making your product more popular does not always mean making it more efficient. You have to add bells and whistles to attract peoples' attention. Do you add the features (taking up more resources) to gain an audience, or do you take out the features making it more efficient to keep from losing some of your geeky audience (especially these days with PC's shipping out with 6+GB Memory and 3+Ghz processors)? It is a fine line, and I do think FF is a little heavy on the feature side of the scales. However, I by no means think it is a bad program. I think it still runs circles around IE, especially with security, user interaction and performance.
A good friend of mine would hop on Facebook using IE and have his processor would spike and the fan started screaming. I wrote it off as the Antivirus at the time. So we changed AV's and have not heard from the user since. Now I am not sure if it fixed the problem, or if he just got tired of complaining. But regardless, the problem in this case was with IE and not Firefox. This is a great example as to why you cannot judge a program by how it works with just one website. I ask again, maybe some of the responsibility is with Facebook?
Just my two cents...
