Weves

16 ms·

1.
Are file systems all you need?(onyx.app)
1 points by Weves 5mo ago|0 comments
2.
Bash commands outperform vector search for complex questions(chrisweves.com)
5 points by Weves 7mo ago|1 comments
3.
Show HN: Craft – Claude Code running on a VM with all your workplace docs
7 points by Weves 8mo ago|0 comments
4.
by Weves 10mo ago
Have you checked out https://docs.onyx.app/deployment/getting_started/quickstart#... ? We should definitely update the Local guide to reflect the ^, thanks for pointing that out. For the container footprint - prett
5.
by Weves 10mo ago
Yep, we have our own implementations! We've spent a lot of time on them, and in our internal benchmarks they compare pretty favorable to the native versions. RAG specifically is our speciality - we've done a ton of optimizations t
6.
by Weves 10mo ago
A few reasons: 1/ No model lock-in / ability to use the ideal model for each use case. 2/ More connectivity. A fuller connector library (contributed to by the open-source community). More built-in tools (similar to the ^). 3&
7.
by Weves 10mo ago
Reposting from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46047430 : --- Broadly, I think other open source solutions are lacking in (1) integration of external knowledge into the chat (2) simple UX (3) complex "agent" f
8.
by Weves 10mo ago
You could! We have a number of users who do something like that (e.g. Ramp's in-app chat bot is powered by Onyx)
9.
by Weves 10mo ago
Great suggestion! I haven't heard of it before, but I'll definitely add it to the list. Would love to hear your feedback after you get a chance to try Onyx out.
10.
by Weves 10mo ago
Thanks! Especially these days, refinement is (by far) the hardest part :)
11.
by Weves 10mo ago
> One thing I really care about is extensibility Totally makes sense! We've defined simple `Connector`, `Tool` and (soon) `Agent` interfaces to make it easy to plug in your own implementations/apps. If you wanted, you could jus
12.
by Weves 10mo ago
We have! Likely not for a while, since we want to focus on the web app for a bit more. But long term that would be the plan. Things like shortcuts to access the chat + ability to reach into the local file system are very compelling.
13.
by Weves 10mo ago
Yes indeed! Our belief is that tool design, compaction (e.g. tool result summarization), and reminders are the things that separate a product that works magically vs one that falls over on any slightly more complex task. And this is all mad
14.
by Weves 10mo ago
> ease of installation, streaming support, model agnosticity, chat persistence and blob support we have all of those! > how onyx is comparable For an AI-powered research assistant, Onyx might just work out of the box. We have ~45 conn
15.
by Weves 10mo ago
What format are the docs being uploaded as? By default, images uploaded into the chat would be directly passed through. PDFs would be parsed and fed to the LLM as text. Writing is a really common use case, and something we'd like to ex
16.
by Weves 10mo ago
That's one way people use Onyx! Specifically, the Projects feature (see the left sidebar) works similarly e.g. you can upload arbitrary numbers of files - going well beyond the context limit of your model - and then ask questions of th
17.
by Weves 10mo ago
Totally get this concern. How we think about it: the chat product should be completely open-source and free (forever). To that end we've moved features like SSO (that used to be "enterprise") to be MIT licensed. The chat inte
18.
by Weves 10mo ago
Thanks! And 404 should be fixed
19.
by Weves 10mo ago
Haha, yea the UIs certainly have similarities (much of the industry converges to standard places to put different components, since users are familiar). "Agents" is a particular area where we feel like we're better than the a
20.
by Weves 10mo ago
Hmm, will have to disagree here. I think "one chat to rule them all" is the way it will end. It does requires having UI components for many different types of interactions (e.g. many ways to collect user input mid-session + displa
21.
by Weves 10mo ago
Great question! Depends on the specific alternative, but the broad points are: - "pure chat" experience. From our community (and personal use), we've observed that most queries don't actually involve enterprise search. T
22.
by Weves 10mo ago
Hmm, yea that's a great callout. Something we definitely have in our sights longer term (focus for now is to make sure that the desktop chat experience is truly amazing).
23.
by Weves 10mo ago
Yes, exactly! Would love to hear your feedback compared to OpenWebUI
24.
by Weves 10mo ago
Yes absolutely! There's no license restriction on white-labeling, so we've seen lots of companies do that. In our opinion, it's a bit silly to build completely in house when you can take something like Onyx as the starting po
25.
by Weves 10mo ago
Outside of pure security, we've seen many choose Onyx for flexibility + connectedness. One of our largest users has forked the repo and has 20+ commits back to the repo of small customizations that are important for them (and that they
26.
by Weves 10mo ago
All of the core chat UX + "add-ons" is in FOSS! In the enterprise: - permission syncing - UI-based white labeling - Advanced RBAC - Usage analytics UI
27.
by Weves 10mo ago
Thanks for the kind words! The key point there is that many would do it through Azure / Bedrock + locally host the open-source models. Also, all chats / indexed data lives on-prem, and there are better guarantees around retention
28.
by Weves 10mo ago
That's a fair point! We were aware of onnx, but felt it was okay since they are very different products so we felt that there wouldn't be too much confusion (people generally know which onyx/onnx they are looking for).
29.
by Weves 10mo ago
We're definitely looking to add back some of that flexibility / customizability. I don't think you have to sacrifice a nice, simple UI to provide what power users are looking for. For now, the main reasons for a prosumer to u
30.
by Weves 10mo ago
Great to hear that you've heard good things. And yea we have many large (>1k+) teams using just the open-source version (something we love to see).

More ›