I use EC2 for development (I commute via bike so I don't usually work offline) and it's the best environment I've ever coded in.

In fact, I can even code and fix things from my iPad, your iPad, anyones computer, my phone, a library kiosk or an airplane cockpit.

If I want to try something experimental (aka dist upgrade etc), I just clone the AMI, make my modifications, and if I like it, I keep it.

My emacs looks exactly the same, where ever I am. If I need to get to a different computer, I still log in through my EC2 instance, where all servers I need are accessible via convenient shortcuts and the appropriate port forwarding is configured already. And, again, I can do this from wherever I am.

How is that backwards?

You make a good point, on second thought EC2 is a pretty good development environment as long as you aren't GUI dependent.

I still don't think it is a good development environment for someone that finds a node.js install too complicated. This seems to be what the article suggests.

AMI clone take too much time (esp. for non-EBS based instances).

I installed git on the AMI, so I can switch branches on the same AMI.

How is that superior to having a nice desktop that you can shell/nx into?

IMO - because it is hosted on the net and you can send the link to others.

I was just about to set up an EC2 micro with node and mongo this weekend.

I also get the opportunity to build a server, deploy in an environment that I can scale in "one day"

I think there are a lot of valuable skills to be gained by doing this for free and for fun right now, so that I can do it for a startup later on.

If I don't know how to build an EC2 system, I can't be confident in my ability to sell that skill later on.

OTTOMH: create different configurations that you only need for one project, experiment with cutting edge software, increase CPU, memory and disk on the fly ...

For a development environment? What?

Especially with node.js that simply doesn't make sense.

If you're running it with users on it which would actually need CPU, memory or disk, duh I would run it on EC2.

The great thing with EC2 is that you can let all your friends try your Node.js app by giving them a simple link. It's all about reducing the barrier to entry.

For me the reason is two fold. Sharing the hacks I build is easier when I don't have to deal with NAT. Secondly, for some environments, like the default Amazon Linux AMI the default packages and PATH makes it a huge hassle to compile/install Node. This AMI was born out of our own frustration with that process which I'm sure affects Linux distros other than just the Amazon Linux one.

EDIT: Removed lingo abuse.

"real-time web apps"? C'mon, don't abuse the lingo man.

NAT? Who doesn't have IPv6 these days?

If I want to share my node app with someone, I just tell them to visit http://snowball2.jrock.us:4545/ and there we are.

(Really? -2? I am actually surprised that this is a problem. I have to share web apps with my friends, in both directions, regularly. It's never been a problem. Everyone has a publicly-routeable address these days.)

Sadly, not all ISPs allow this. I run into this frustration whenever I visit my parents. They use a wireless ISP which does not provide each customer with a public facing IP. They all share the same public IP address and therefore can not receive incoming connections.

It's quite frustrating.

Ah, but it's easy to get a publicly-routed IPv6 tunnel.

Yes. They are called Windows users. And I am one of them. I set up an ec2 instance last week using a similar process. I also got a cywin up locally, but I use the ec2 instance mostly.

Now that you mention it, Virtual Box would be a great solution and it would be great to have a guide walking through this. I used google to figure everything out and 'node.js ec2' is a query you get to pretty quickly when you have no starting reference point.