Huh? To be fair I primarily use Linux because it's the most ergonomic operating experience and tends to get out of my way, where I feel like I'm always fighting against the UX of Windows or OSX. The licensing situation is a lovely bonus but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest it's the foremost reason most users install Linux

How much would you pay if Ubuntu (or your favorite Linux distro) was proprietary?

In a vacuum? $0 - there's other Linux distros and the BSDs and being proprietary would impact some of the reasons why it's so usable.

In a world where open source didn't exist? Well I paid €129 for Windows 10 Pro recently, if there was no open source *nix I guess I'd pay that for one.

> The 3% of Linux desktop users would disagree.

If we consider this statistic to be meaningful in this case, then 97% of people don't care. That's enough to be able to generalize.

> What I really fail to understand is why people don't hedge. They are collectively willing to pay millions of dollars every year in perpetuity for a product, but never realize they can help fund an open alternative for a much lower cost, and that once the product does what they want, they won't lose access to it?

Discord is not a paid application. I've never paid them a cent in my years of using it.

I use Linux (Ubuntu) because it's better for my needs and gets out of my way, being open-source is a bonus.

Since Ubuntu is arguably the most proprietary-software-friendly distro and also the most popular, I'd say a good portion of those 3% seem to be on Linux for the same reasons as me, and not for its "licensing status".

Being "proprietary-software-friendly" and proprietary is not the same.

How much would you pay for Ubuntu if it was proprietary?

> The 3% of Linux desktop users would disagree.

We don't know how much of that 3% is there for the FOSS aspect.

I suspect most are because of the free aspect and being better than Windows for their use case, the open source is just a bonus.

> They are collectively willing to pay millions of dollars every year in perpetuity for a product

People love free stuff and will prefer it if its good enough, that's why Discord and Google Docs are so popular.

Funding open source would be cool though. Specially if we started hiring UX people

The ones that are not for the FOSS aspect are either masochists or using Apple, aren't they? I'm yet to meet anyone using Linux because they couldn't buy or pirate Windows.

> Funding open source would be cool though. Specially if we started hiring UX people

If I hadn't promised my wife that I would take a real break during the holidays, I'd be working on the landing page to gauge interest on this idea that I have on to create a (non-crypto) "DAO" for curating/funding/promoting Open Source development. Can I ping you once I have something more concrete to show?

> The ones that are not for the FOSS aspect are either masochists or using Apple, aren't they? I'm yet to meet anyone using Linux because they couldn't buy or pirate Windows.

I switched to Linux this year, after three decades as a happy Windows power user since 3.1, because I was finally sick of having to fight the OS to stop it from showing me ads, tracking my activity, and trying to push unwanted products and updates on me.

This may or may not count as "I switched for the FOSS". Of course its FOSS nature is ultimately the reason why Linux does not treat me as a data cow.

But if Linux were a fully closed-source, commercial OS, but still showed the same basic respect to me that older Windows version did, I would still be a happy user. Said respect need be as little as (1) don't put stuff on my machine without my permission, (2) let me do whatever the fuck I want on my machine.

> The ones that are not for the FOSS aspect are either masochists or using Apple, aren't they?

No, I use Linux because I need a *nix system, Linux provides a better one out-of-the-box, and I very much dislike Apple's UI/UX.

The last time I installed windows on a computer was in 2007. Even then I was already spending more time on cygwin than on anything Windows-specific. Some years ago, I put together a Hackintosh to see if there was anything that I would be missing by sticking with Linux on the Desktop, and I realized that my day-to-day was better served on Linux than any alternative. I can confidently say that I will never ever again install any proprietary OS on my personal machines.

That said, there were more than a few occasions that made me aware that this choice was not free of downsides:

- When I gave up on having a reliable bluetooth connection

- When I got so sick of looking for ways to improve battery life and just started assuming that it will last a third of what is claimed to last with Windows.

- After I tried to connect my guitar to my computer via an usb interface and realized that I had to choose between running the sound effects application or running any other sound app that depended on Pulseaudio.

- When I browsed through Steam and realized that I still can not find a good car-racing game that runs on Linux.

So, yes, Linux is great and can do a lot. But if you are not having any kind of periodic frustration with it you are either resignated or playing within a very small sandbox.

> The 3% of Linux desktop users would disagree.

Please avoid putting words in my mouth, particularly when you are blatently wrong.

Could you please tell me how much you pay for Linux if it were a proprietary OS?

I'd gladly pay Windows prices (say, $100/host). I run Linux because it annoys me less than Windows and wastes less of my time; at no point did license politics ever enter into the calculation.

Have you? Do you donate for any project?

You've moved the goalposts, as your earlier question asked how much they'd pay if it was proprietary - that is, in an alternate reality with everything else the same.

"Have you?" doesn't make sense, as we're not in that reality.

Imho, the question about donation comes across as implying the person is dishonest about being willing to pay if it was proprietary, unless they have donated when it's free.

But it's perfectly consistent for a person to be willing to pay for something if it has a price and happy to take it for free when it's offered for free.

You only learn about someone's true preferences when they actually put some skin in the game, i.e when they open their wallets.

Someone that says "I would pay if it were not free" is a much weaker signal that says "I paid even knowing I could have it for free"

If Arch Linux were only available for a price, *with all else being the same*, I'd pay it. Since it's available for free, I pay nothing.

Problem is, there's no way to have a price tag on it and have all else be the same. The reduction in users this would bring would impact many of the reasons I like Arch, not to mention the perverse incentives it creates for the maintainers.