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.