> Ollama does not use llama.cpp anymore;

> We do use GGML

Sorry, but this is kind of hiding the ball. You don't use llama.cpp, you just ... use their core library that implements all the difficult bits, and carry a patchset on top of it?

Why do you have to start with the first statement at all? "we use the core library from llama.cpp/ggml and implement what we think is a better interface and UX. we hope you like it and find it useful."

▲ mchiang 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

thanks, I'll take that feedback, but I do want to clarify that it's not from llama.cpp/ggml. It's from ggml-org/ggml. I supposed it's all interchangeable though, so thank you for it.

▲ kristjansson 6 days ago | parent [-]

  % diff -ru ggml/src llama.cpp/ggml/src | grep -E '^(\+|\-) .*' | wc -l
      1445

i.e. as of time of writing +/- 1445 lines between the two, on about 175k total lines. a lot of which is the recent MXFP4 stuff.

Ollama is great software. It's integral to the broader diffusion of LLMs. You guys should be incredibly proud of it and the impact its had. I understand the current environment rewards bold claims, but the sense I get from some of your communications is "what's the boldest, strongest claim we can make that's still mostly technically true". As a potential user, taking those claims as true until closer evaluation reveals the discrepancy feels pretty bad, and keeps me firmly in the 'potential' camp.

Have the confidence in your software and the respect for your users to advertise your system as it is.

▲

benreesman 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm torn on this, I was a fan of the project from the very beginning and never sent any of my stuff upstream, so I'm less than a contributor but more than don't care, and it's still non-obvious how the split happened.

But the takeaway is pretty clearly that `llama.cpp`, `GGML`/`GGUF`, and generally `ggerganov`'s single-handedly Carmacking it when everyone thought it was impossible is all the value. I think a lot of people made Docker containers with `ggml`/`gguf` in them and one was like "we can make this a business if we realllllly push it".

Ollama as a hobby project or even a serious OSS project? With a cordial upstream relationship and massive attribution labels everywhere? Sure. Maybe even as a commercial thing that has a massive "Wouldn't Be Possible Without" page for it's OSS core upstream.

But like: startup company for making money that's (to all appearances) completely out of reach for the principles to ever do without totally `cp -r && git commit` repeatedly? It's complicated, a lot of stuff starts as a fork and goes off in a very different direction, and I got kinda nauseous and stopped paying attention at some point, but near as I can tell they're still just copying all the stuff they can't figure out how to do themselves on an ongoing basis without resolving the upstream drama?

It's like, in bounds barely I guess. I can't point to it being "this is strictly against the rules or norms", but it's bending everything to the absolute limit. It's not a zone I'd want to spend a lot of time in.

	▲	kristjansson 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		To be clear I was comparing ggml-org/ggml to ggml-org/llama.cpp/ggml to respond to the earlier thing. Ollama carries an additional patchset on top of ggml-org/ggml. > [ggml] is all the value That’s what gets me about Ollama - they have real value too! Docker is just the kernel’s cgroups/chroots/iptables/… but it deserves a lot of credit for articulating and operating those on behalf of the user. Ollama deserves the same. But they’re consistently kinda weird about owning just that?

▲

dcreater 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is utterly damming.

▲ cortesoft 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are you being so accusatory about a choice about which details are important?