The only evidence I can find of this... Is another comment from you. (Googled: '"MSFT_PRIVATE" partition'. One result.)
Best I can tell support for the 'res' type has existed at least since 2006; search for 'msft': https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...
Then in 2012 it was... an individual and Red Hat who introduced the 'msftdata' flag: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...
I don't get the insinuation, it conflates things that span at least a decade. It sucks that Microsoft is where they are in secure boot... but one can manage their own policies/keys.
Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.
ok it is true that these partition types are older than I previously assumed.. but the statement about "forced to use secure boot" .. that is not true at all, yes lots of devices are forced to use UEFI secure boot. In fact, a quote from a Debian derivative recently stated "we use a kernel from Canonical to support booting a wider range of devices" .. because they just want to do that? no one is making them do that? really, the market truth of laptops and cloud VMs is requiring UEFI in a calculated way, with the keys being issued and managed centrally from MSFT. info welcome
