That's rather difficult to answer considering alot of vendors have moved their commercial applications into the open source market.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to exclude the online services which are closed source. Anybody hosting a website, or managing their business with an online service is typically doing so with a closed source vendor.

Yahoo Store would be a closed source CMS... even though it is an online service and people can alter the mark-up. I only use it for some invoicing... but I am aware of WHMCS... I have seen others running encoded (zend) php turnkey commerce solutions...

I would think anything which microsoft releases is closed source. I would go so far as to suggest any open source vendor with commercial interests is indeed more of closed source vendor than an open source one. Before you flame me please understand I am speaking from a time when open source was synonymous with free. That's just not the case anymore. Many open source vendors will not allow others access to the CVS which essentially is different from many open source projects which encourage a community of developers to build the application ( that just doesn't work... imo... not if your running business ).

In any event... It's really easy to blur the lines of what is open source and what isn't. For example... some open source vendors are now encoding thier products with commercial applications to once again take an open source product to turn it into a closed source one.

I think perhaps it's just rather silly for anyone to even debate the open source vs closed source argument. I think from a security standpoint it boils down to how the software is distributed. If it is freely distributed it will fall out of date and be substantially more susceptible to security breaches (This includes software piracy, and "resellers" with no long term vested interest towards the end client.). If it is managed and distributed or at the very least partially connected to a software service distribution model then everybody wins.

I really feel that open source fails because too many people are branching from the main distributions. It's all take... it's the minority who give back. "True" open source methodology is not at a level where the community is skilled enough to manage itself. There will always be a human element of nastiness which prevents a Utopian, Idealistic, Community Open Source software norm.

Before you throw out the wikipedia argument to combat the responsibility and skill level argument. Remember... it's costing them 6 million yearly in donations to keep it running. And the "open source" nature of the project has been simplified to wiki markup. It has also lead to a new generation of people who warn you not to trust what you read in the wiki... (not that I ever trusted what was inside the encylopedia britannica

And I would be more inclined to go with a vendor with commercial interests. The majority of products I use on a daily are indeed closed source. Websites included.

__________________
James Weisbrod - programmer