Live data from Hacker News

The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

sleepingrobots.com

31–40 of 222 posts

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#31
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can pull directly from huggingface with llama.cpp, and it also has a decent web chat included

Does it have a model registry with an API and hot swapping or you still have to use sometime like llama swap as suggested in the article ? Or is it CLI?

You can have multiple models served now with loading/unloading with just the server binary.

https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/tools/serv...

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#32
> Ollama is a Y Combinator-backed (W21) startup, founded by engineers who previously built a Docker GUI that was acquired by Docker Inc. The playbook is familiar: wrap an existing open-source project in a user-friendly interface, build a user base, raise money, then figure out monetization.

    The progression follows the pattern cleanly:

    1. Launch on open source, build on llama.cpp, gain community trust
    2. Minimize attribution, make the product look self-sufficient to investors
    3. Create lock-in, proprietary model registry format, hashed filenames that don’t work with other tools
    4. Launch closed-source components, the GUI app
    5. Add cloud services, the monetization vector

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#33

For 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

Llama.cpp now has a gui installed by default. It previously lacked this. Times have changed.

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#34

For 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

Llama.cpp now has a gui installed by default. It previously lacked this. Times have changed.

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.

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#35

No mention of the fact that Ollama is about 1000x easier to use. Llama.cpp is a great project, but it's also one of the least user friendly pieces of software I've used. I don't think anyone in the project cares about normal users. I started with Ollama, and it was great. But I moved to llama.cpp to have more up-to-date fixes. I still use Ollama to pull and list my models because it's so easy. I then built my own set…

Exactly. The blog post states that the alternatives listed are similarly intuitive. They are not. If you just need a chat app, then sure, there’s plenty of options. But if you want an OpenAI compatible API with model management, accessibility breaks down fast. I’m open to suggestions, but the alternatives outlined in the blog post ain’t it.

The reported alternatives seem pretty User-Friendly to me:

> LM Studio gives you a GUI if that’s what you want. It uses llama.cpp under the hood, exposes all the knobs, and supports any GGUF model without lock-in.

> Jan(https://www.jan.ai/) is another open-source desktop app with a clean chat interface and local-first design.

> Msty(https://msty.ai/) offers a polished GUI with multi-model support and built-in RAG. koboldcpp is another option with a web UI and extensive configuration options.

API wise: LM Studio has REST, OpenAI and more API Compatibilities.

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#36

No mention of the fact that Ollama is about 1000x easier to use. Llama.cpp is a great project, but it's also one of the least user friendly pieces of software I've used. I don't think anyone in the project cares about normal users. I started with Ollama, and it was great. But I moved to llama.cpp to have more up-to-date fixes. I still use Ollama to pull and list my models because it's so easy. I then built my own set…

> No mention of the fact that Ollama is about 1000x easier to use.

Easier than what?

I came across LM Studio (mentioned in the post) about 3 years ago before I even knew what Ollama as. It was far better even then.

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#37

For 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

Llama.cpp now has a gui installed by default. It previously lacked this. Times have changed.

Having read above article, I just gave llama.cpp a shot. It is as easy as the author says now, though definitely not documented quite as well. My quickstart:

brew install llama.cpp

llama-server -hf ggml-org/gemma-4-E4B-it-GGUF --port 8000

Go to localhost:8000 for the Web UI. On Linux it accelerates correctly on my AMD GPU, which Ollama failed to do, though of course everyone's mileage seems to vary on this.

Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama

#38

For 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

Llama.cpp now has a gui installed by default. It previously lacked this. Times have changed.

Frankly I think the cli UX and documentation is still much better for ollama.

It makes a bunch of decisions for you so you don't have to think much to get a model up and running.

Post reply on HN