You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page!

Own a shiny new PlayStation 5 and want to stream games from it to your desktop or laptop? Or perhaps you're clinging onto your PlayStation 4 and want to do the same? Chiaki is here to help.

Linux gaming? Not quite but it's another brilliant FOSS application that can enable you to do whatever you want, with what you already own. I've used Chiaki occasionally with my own PlayStation 4 to stream it to my Linux desktop and for the most part, it actually works surprisingly well depending on the network setup.

The big Chiaki 2.0.0 update went out and pulls in some big features on top of PlayStation 5 support being new, here's some of the big features:

  • PS5 Remote Play Support
  • Add Nintendo Switch Borealis GUI
  • FFMPEG in builds updated to 4.3.1
  • Add Video Profile Auto Downgrade when 1080p is selected for PS4
  • Add correct Bitrate for 1080p
  • Relicense under AGPL v3 only + OpenSSL
  • Connect all available controllers in GUI
  • Add Double Click for Fullscreen in GUI
  • Add Audio Device Selection to GUI
  • Add Congestion Control
  • Add Raspberry Pi Decoder
  • Add Text Input Support to Library
  • Improve GUI CLI for streaming
  • Add Sleep Mode Trigger
  • Add generic Hardware Decoder Selection to GUI

There's also a good few bug fixes included as well of course. Great to see Chiaki continue to evolve, another case of a few doing what a big company will not.

Chiaki itself has also moved. The developer is no longer using GitHub, and is instead now providing everything up on their own sourcehut - which you can now find here.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
16 Likes, Who?
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG and Humble Store. See more here.
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
17 comments
Page: «2/2
  Go to:

Purple Library Guy 30 Dec, 2020
Quoting: HoriHating something just because it is owned by Microsoft is not very reasonable. And to go even further I find it to be very similar to racism except it's directed at companies instead of "races".
No. This is fundamentally wrong on a stack of levels, and indeed a somewhat offensive accusation.

First: Corporations are not persons, whatever their people may have managed to shoehorn into our legal systems. They are not the kind of entities that can bear rights, let alone equal ones. There is nothing wrong with hating them or being prejudiced against them either as a whole category or one by one. It isn't like racism any more than hating Harlequin Romances, or some particular Harlequin Romance, is like racism. People get equal rights, people should not be discriminated against on various bases, corporations do. not. count.

Second: Corporations are led by individual people and have different institutional cultures. It is possible to assess both the individual leaders and tendencies in the institutional cultures. So when it comes to deciding to hate a company, it is much more like deciding to hate an individual; you may hate a company because you assess its leaders as evil people, or you may hate a company because it seems to consistently do lousy things due to general policies and approaches, even if various different people are involved.

Third: Corporations are entities which have in common an objective to suck profits out of the world for their shareholders and top executives while giving as little as possible in return, whether to customers, employees or the countries they are embedded in. There is some wiggle room for style, but if they are publicly traded and large that wiggle room is small--to the extent that a corporation could be said to have a "personality", all of them almost inevitably have a psychopathic one. Technically, corporations can't be "evil", or even "amoral", because that kind of category just doesn't really apply to a legal fiction any more than "rights" or "racism". But to the extent that a corporation's actions can be mapped to anything "likeable" or "hateable", any given one is far more likely to be worthy of hate than liking. Disallowing negative references to things dedicated to institutionalized psychopathy is a bad idea.

Fourth: Microsoft in specific is in my opinion probably not that much more hateworthy than an average giant corporation . . . right now. But it is still maintaining a monopoly, which is inherently a bad thing. And anyone who knows Microsoft's history at all well is aware that it certainly used to be about as evil as they come. In the old days, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer did masses of things that were treacherous, probably illegal, and very bad for technology all at the same time, in order to gain and maintain their monopoly on desktop computing and office suites and try for the browser. Some argue that Bill has changed, but in those days he was an evil man. And they spread a vile institutional culture through the company, such that you could pretty much count on Microsoft's actions to be sneaky, underhanded, aggressive, and calculated to enhance their monopoly by damaging computing and consumers. Microsoft was about as evil as it is possible for a corporation to be without actually promoting infant mortality (like Nestle with baby formula in the Third World). So I think for those of us who have been around long enough to remember, you should cut us some slack for being slow to forgive. And if you're too young to remember and/or don't know much about their shenanigans from back then, you should just bloody well trust those of us who do know. It's not like they've ever done anything much to make up for those days.
3zekiel 30 Dec, 2020
Quoting: ShinyaOsen
Quoting: 3zekielOtherwise, if your PC is powerful enough, I recommend rpcs3 emulator, it works quite well for me.

RPCS3 was the reason i got a PS3 played some games and really liked them but preformance was poor with somegames (about Version 0.0.6-7830) at the time and getting games was hard and games i wanted to play didnt work so i bought a ps3 because it was easier. Best thing that happened was when i was buying games from gamestop's website and the system bugged and had to only pay $0.24 i still dont know how this happened

Ah yes, some games still do not play nice. I do have my PS3 still around for that. I don't know if there is a list somewhere of streamable games on PS3, it's true in those case I would have some use for it too
tuubi 30 Dec, 2020
Quoting: Purple Library Guy[Excellent wall of text.]
There's not much to add, but I'll do it anyway. A sort of "TL;DR", although not reading that post would be a shame:

Judging a person by their actions is fine, and is not discrimination. So even if you buy into the ridiculous idea that corporations are people and should be treated with the same respect, you are definitely allowed (if not morally compelled) to judge them by their actions and act upon them. Usually "act" means "speak out and boycott", but it can also mean things like "report to the authorities" if you suspect their actions to be downright illegal.
damarrin 31 Dec, 2020
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: Hori

Wow, comparing avoiding companies to racism. Just... wow.
Hori 31 Dec, 2020
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: HoriHating something just because it is owned by Microsoft is not very reasonable. And to go even further I find it to be very similar to racism except it's directed at companies instead of "races".
No. This is fundamentally wrong on a stack of levels, and indeed a somewhat offensive accusation.

First: Corporations are not persons, whatever their people may have managed to shoehorn into our legal systems. They are not the kind of entities that can bear rights, let alone equal ones. There is nothing wrong with hating them or being prejudiced against them either as a whole category or one by one. It isn't like racism any more than hating Harlequin Romances, or some particular Harlequin Romance, is like racism. People get equal rights, people should not be discriminated against on various bases, corporations do. not. count.

Second: Corporations are led by individual people and have different institutional cultures. It is possible to assess both the individual leaders and tendencies in the institutional cultures. So when it comes to deciding to hate a company, it is much more like deciding to hate an individual; you may hate a company because you assess its leaders as evil people, or you may hate a company because it seems to consistently do lousy things due to general policies and approaches, even if various different people are involved.

Third: Corporations are entities which have in common an objective to suck profits out of the world for their shareholders and top executives while giving as little as possible in return, whether to customers, employees or the countries they are embedded in. There is some wiggle room for style, but if they are publicly traded and large that wiggle room is small--to the extent that a corporation could be said to have a "personality", all of them almost inevitably have a psychopathic one. Technically, corporations can't be "evil", or even "amoral", because that kind of category just doesn't really apply to a legal fiction any more than "rights" or "racism". But to the extent that a corporation's actions can be mapped to anything "likeable" or "hateable", any given one is far more likely to be worthy of hate than liking. Disallowing negative references to things dedicated to institutionalized psychopathy is a bad idea.

Fourth: Microsoft in specific is in my opinion probably not that much more hateworthy than an average giant corporation . . . right now. But it is still maintaining a monopoly, which is inherently a bad thing. And anyone who knows Microsoft's history at all well is aware that it certainly used to be about as evil as they come. In the old days, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer did masses of things that were treacherous, probably illegal, and very bad for technology all at the same time, in order to gain and maintain their monopoly on desktop computing and office suites and try for the browser. Some argue that Bill has changed, but in those days he was an evil man. And they spread a vile institutional culture through the company, such that you could pretty much count on Microsoft's actions to be sneaky, underhanded, aggressive, and calculated to enhance their monopoly by damaging computing and consumers. Microsoft was about as evil as it is possible for a corporation to be without actually promoting infant mortality (like Nestle with baby formula in the Third World). So I think for those of us who have been around long enough to remember, you should cut us some slack for being slow to forgive. And if you're too young to remember and/or don't know much about their shenanigans from back then, you should just bloody well trust those of us who do know. It's not like they've ever done anything much to make up for those days.

What I mean when I say "it's like racism" is that if you hate a product just because it's Microsoft, is just the same as hating a person just because he's black.

Hating someone based on ethnicity/colour/etc no matter how good-hearted and/or respectable they might be, is psychologically the same process as hating a product no matter how good it is just because it's made by a certain company.
In those cases, the hate starts from the moment the decided factor is known (ethnicity / company) and before futher details (personality / usefullness) even enters the equation.
They both have the same psychological root.

Sure, the effect is not the same. Obviously hating a company is not nearly as bad as hating an individual - and doing it does not mean it's directed at people (or at least not any more than the decision-makers). But that was not my point. My point was the diagnostic, not the symptom.
Maybe I was just not clear with my statement.


Last edited by Hori on 31 December 2020 at 12:37 pm UTC
tuubi 31 Dec, 2020
Quoting: HoriWhat I mean when I say "it's like racism" is that if you hate a product just because it's Microsoft, is just the same as hating a person just because he's black.
No. One is hating a corporation for their actions and the other is hating a person for their skin colour. Surely you can see how this is a false equivalence.
Purple Library Guy 31 Dec, 2020
Quoting: HoriWhat I mean when I say "it's like racism" is that if you hate a product just because it's Microsoft, is just the same as hating a person just because he's black.

Hating someone based on ethnicity/colour/etc no matter how good-hearted and/or respectable they might be, is psychologically the same process as hating a product no matter how good it is just because it's made by a certain company.
In those cases, the hate starts from the moment the decided factor is known (ethnicity / company) and before futher details (personality / usefullness) even enters the equation.
They both have the same psychological root.

Sure, the effect is not the same. Obviously hating a company is not nearly as bad as hating an individual - and doing it does not mean it's directed at people (or at least not any more than the decision-makers). But that was not my point. My point was the diagnostic, not the symptom.
Maybe I was just not clear with my statement.
Still an error. It's not about the product. Nobody's hating the product, they're just hating (and more importantly, mistrusting) the company. That mistrust is based on a long track record of untrustworthiness. If a con man wants to sell you a bridge and you refuse because they're a con man, it's not because you hate bridges, it's because you think the con man is going to cheat you. And if your enemy is selling perfectly good chocolate cakes and you refuse to buy one, it's not because you hate chocolate cakes, it's because you don't want to give your enemy money.

So clearly, if someone who was OK with Github before is now against Github because Microsoft owns it, it's not because they have changed their feelings about the inherent nature of Github. It is because they distrust Microsoft and so fear that Microsoft will use Github in a baneful way, and so it's better to get out from under any lockin or whatever that they might impose. And it's because they hate Microsoft and want MS to fail to make money or dominate markets.

Your analogy is utterly wrong, and it leads to completely mistaken and counterproductive prescriptions. Taking you seriously means letting companies, political parties and other organizations get away with anything and never calling them to account. It means buying more products from a company after their milk with Malamine poisoned your children.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 31 December 2020 at 4:44 pm UTC
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Patreon, Liberapay or PayPal Donation.

We have no adverts, no paywalls, no timed exclusive articles. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register

Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.

Livestreams & Videos
Community Livestreams
Latest Forum Posts