http://news.oreilly.com/print/26495.htmlJT: Do you think that the current Mac(s) are a real direct line from the original Mac(s), or do you think there was some kind of a break in lineage along the way?
AH: Well there's certainly a line but I wouldn't characterize it as direct with two different processor family switches; essentially a major OS switch. The--the Macintosh OS--of today is not the OS that I helped write, although certainly a lot of its DNA is in there.
JT: Reading your book, it seems like the project management style for the Mac was very loose. How would you compare it to conventional project management approaches like Agile or Waterfall?
AH: I'm not sure; I don't even know what Waterfall is. I have a pretty good idea of what Agile programming is and in a way that's the technique we used by the Mac. But I think you know all conventional processes will make conventional products. The key thing--the key ingredient to me is the passion that developers put into their work--how much of themselves they invest in it, and I think that's kind of orthogonal to a conventional development process. You can, you know the formal process can be whatever but the key ingredient is the passion and you know and the Mac team had passion in spades.
