This issue seems to be the typical case of someone being bothered for someone else, because it implies there's no "recognition of source material" when there's quite a bit of symbiosis between the projects.
Well, llama.cpp supports fetching models from a bunch of different sources according to that file, Hugging Face, ModelScope, Ollama, any HTTP/local source. Seems fair to say they've added support for any source one most likely will find the LLM model you're looking for at.
Not sure I'd say there is "symbiosis" between ModelScope and llama.cpp just because you could download models from there via llama.cpp, just like you wouldn't say there is symbiosis between LM Studio and Hugging Face, or even more fun example: YouTube <> youtube-dl/yt-dlp.
Symbiosis states that a relationship exists. Subcategories of symbiosis state how useful that relationship is to either party, and they're determined by the observer rather than the organisms involved.
Yes and no, the problem with not expecting that a prominent project follow the rules is that it makes it easier and more likely that no one will follow the rules.
The fact that Ollama has been downplaying their reliance on llama.cpp has been known in the local LLM community for a long time now. Describing the situation as "symbiosis" is very misleading IMO.
I blame this on the recent development of "open source as a marketing strategy". I'm getting tired of "open source" products that have restrictive licenses, or that are open source but lock features behind paywalls and subscription plans. It seems open source is just an excuse to ask for "stars" and to get some good will from potential users.
The Open Source world has become what the startup world became: more posers than supporters.
If you're worried that people will steal your code, your idea, or use your product for free, then don't claim it's "open source" and say "source available for auditing purposes" and start paying for contributions.
Everyone talking about Kubernetes as if it was merely a "hyperscaler" and the biggest benefit of Kubernetes over a bunch of custom scripts is consistency and the ability to have everyone work on an industry standard, which makes it easier to onboard new hires, to write scripts and documentation against, etc…
To answer your question directly: yes, that's the point. You may have different clusters for different logical purposes but, yes: less clusters, more node groups is a better practice.
We moved entire infrastructure to AWS last year, to speed up/simplify/rethink it. We lasted 3 months on S3/CloudFront. We are still heavily invested in AWS, but moved our production storage/distribution to R2/Cloudflare and couldn't be happier.
Next up: moving our cloud edge (NAT Gateways, WAF, etc) to Fortinet appliances, which licenses we purchased bundled with our on-prem infra.
I know Corey Quinn always harps on AWS' egress pricing but you really can't emphasize it enough: it's literally extortionary!
VC funding is where cool products/ideas go to die... or sell off to be assimilated.
I don't think VC funding exists if "premium support/enterprise consulting" is the monetization strategy. Either they see monetary value in the product itself and intend to maximize it (aka subscriptions, paid features, etc), or see the IP value and intend to have the business "flipped" for profit.
I don't disagree, but was there something in this post that suggested their monetization strategy was support and consulting? I do see they are going to be focused on "ethical monetization" but I have no idea what that means.
That seems like a rather obviously wrong take. There were ample companies supporting Epic (or rather, fighting Apple) before they filed their lawsuit, which was also long before Epic acquired bandcamp.
Why would Epic acquire bandcamp as a "pawn" to use a year after their trial concluded? It's far more reasonable to assume Epic had a legitimate business interest in Bandcamp, and if anything, the execs of the companies had started talking due to the (concluded) lawsuit and shared interest in not losing 30% of their revenue.
This is just a guess from a UE game developer, but:
a) Epic makes Unreal Engine and runs an asset store that includes sounds and music. Why not include bandcamp and their huge catalog in that store?
b) Epic makes Fortnite, which has tons of music industry tie-ins through purchasable emotes, song tracks, and free in-game concerts. Bandcamp sounds like a great avenue to expand existing agreements to sell music through Fortnite.
c) Epic also acquired Harmonix, which is the original developer of Guitar Hero and various music game spinoffs. Who knows wtf they're doing with Harmonix, but Harmonix+Bandcamp seems like an easy business strategy. "Buy this album on bandcamp and get it in the new Harmonix game too", and vice versa.
Epic has their hands in an awful lot of pies these days, and their layoff statement seemed to be a straightforward admission that their eyes were bigger than their stomach.
This issue seems to be the typical case of someone being bothered for someone else, because it implies there's no "recognition of source material" when there's quite a bit of symbiosis between the projects.