the article nails it!
The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
61–70 of 222 posts
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#62[dead]
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Was hoping it was so easy :) But I probably need to look into it some more.
llama_model_load: error loading model: error loading model architecture: unknown model architecture: 'gemma4' llama_model_load_from_file_impl: failed to load model
Edit: @below, I used `nix-shell -p llama-cpp` so not brew related. Could indeed be an older version indeed! I'll check.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#64amen
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#65No 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.
like someone said above:
brew install llama.cpp
llama-server -hf ggml-org/gemma-4-E4B-it-GGUF --port 8000 (with MCP support and web chat interface)
and you have OpenAI API on the same 8000 port. (https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/tree/master/tools/serv... lists the endpoints)
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#66[dead]
[flagged]
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#67For 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
Whip that llama! Oh wait, that's a different program.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#68The name "llama.cpp" doesn't seem very friendly anymore nowadays... Back then, "llama" probably referred to those models from Facebook, and now those Llama series models clearly can't represent the strongest open-source models anymore...
Doesn't the "llama" in "ollama" present exactly the same issue?
Edit: or maybe that was your point. I guess that for historical reasons this is a kind of generic name for local deployments now (see https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA) just like people will call anything ChatGPT.
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#69For 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
>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 ?
Re: The local LLM ecosystem doesn’t need Ollama
#70For 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
>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.