I stopped using Ollama a couple of months ago. Not out of frustration, but because llama.cpp has improved a lot recently with router mode, hot-swapping, a modern and simple web UI, MCP support and lots of other improvements.
The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
121–130 of 222 posts
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#122I'm a llama.cpp user, but apart from the MIT licensing issue, I personally don't see what's the problem here is? Sure Ollama could have advertised better that llama.cpp was it's original backend, but were they obligated to? It's no different to Docker or VMWare that hitch a ride on kernel primitives etc.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
>solved the UX problem. >One command Notwithstanding the fact that there's about zero difference between `ollama run model-name` and `llama-cpp -hf model-name`, and that running things in the terminal is already a gigantic UX blocker (Ollama's popularity comes from the fact that it has a GUI), why are you putting the blame back on an open source project that owes you approximately zero communication ?
> Ollama's popularity comes from the fact that it has a GUI It's not the GUI, it's the curated model hosting platform. Way easier to use than HF for casual users.
It also made easy for casual users to think that they were running deepseek.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just hit that error a few minutes ago. I build my llama.cpp from source because I use CUDA on Linux. So I made the mistake of trying to run Gemma4 on an older version I had and I got the same error. It’s possible brew installs an older version which doens’t support Gemma4 yet.
Ah it was indeed just that! I'm now on: $ llama --version version: 8770 (82764d8) built with GNU 15.2.0 for Linux x86_64 (From Nix unstable) And this works as advertised, nice chat interface, but no openai API I guess, so no opencode...
check on same port, there is an OpenAI API
https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/tree/master/tools/serv...
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#125the article buries what's actaully the most practical gotcha: ollama's hashed blob storage means if you've been pulling models for months, switching tools requires re-downloading everything because you can't just point another runtime at those files, and most users won't discover this until they're already invested enough that it genuinely hurts to leave.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that might be true, for as long as its name is “.cpp”, people are going to think it’s a C++ library and avoid it.
It would make sense to just make the GUI a separate project, they could call it llama.gui.
it is called llama-barn
https://github.com/ggml-org/LlamaBarn
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#127[dead]
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#128Two Views of MIT-Style Licenses: 1. MIT-style licenses are "do what you want" as long as you provide a single line of attribution. Including building big closed source business around it. 2. MIT-style licenses are "do what you want" under the law, but they carry moral, GPL-like obligations to think about the "community." To my knowledge Georgi Gerganov, the creator of llama.cpp, has only complained about attribution…
The second interpretation is nonsense of course. If you want GPL-like obligations, use the GPL.
A license is what it says in the license, nothing extra. It's a legal document not a moral guideline.
I do think it's a very good idea to always use the GPL (even though commercially minded types always get their panties in a bunch about the GPL) for any user-facing software, to force everybody to 'play fair and share'. The only reason to use MIT imho is for a library implementing some sort of standard where you want that standard used by as many people as possible.
I don't understand people who use MIT for their project and then complain some commercial firm takes their contributions and runs with it. If that's not what you want don't use that license.
Apart from license terms and moral obligations being a bad mix, companies don't have morals. Don't get me wrong, I think they should have! But they don't.
People have morals. Groups of people (a company, a country , a mob) not so much. Sadly.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#129For most users that wanted to run LLM locally, ollama solved the UX problem. One command, and you are running the models even with the rocm drivers without knowing. If llama provides such UX, they failed terrible at communicating that. Starting with the name. Llama.cpp: that's a cpp library! Ollama is the wrapper. That's the mental model. I don't want to build my own program! I just want to have fun :-P
But if you’re just a GUI wrapper then at least attribute the library you created the GUI for
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#130It feels like a bit of history is missing... If ollama was founded 3 years before llama.cpp was released, what engine did they use then? When did they transition?
I don't think that is the case. Llama.cpp appeared within weeks after meta released llama to select researchers (which then made it out to the public). 3 years before that nobody knew of the name llama. I'm sure that llama.cpp existed first
> within weeks
One week, really, if we consider the "public" availability.
Llama announced: February 24, 2023
Weights leaked: March 3, 2023
Llama.cpp: March 10, 2023
(Ollama 0.0.1: Jul 8, 2023)