I think what you just said actually reinforces the point that ollama is a llama.cpp wrapper. I don't say that to disparage ollama, in fact I love ollama. It is an impressive piece of software. If x uses y under the hood, then we say "x is a y wrapper"

▲

smcleod a year ago | parent [-]

I mean.... is Debian just a libc6 wrapper? Is Firefox just a JavaScript wrapper?

Given Ollama currently has llama.cpp, mllama and safetensors backends, there's far more Ollama code and functionality than code that calls llama.cpp

	▲	spencerchubb a year ago \| parent [-]
		why do you say "just" a wrapper? it is not a bad thing to be a wrapper, it is just a descriptive term the amount of code does not dictate whether or not it is a wrapper.