Anything ? No. Not at all.
But some things ? Yes.
National defense being a better example of this than roads due to the need to reduce conflicts of interest. But I should point out that rent seeking is a notorious example of a thing that frequently requires public funding (and supporting regulation) to exist. The AT&T monopoly probably delayed design and implementation of the eventual internet considerably due to the interference of a state-mandated and supported monopoly with little interest in technology development of this sort (their computer development was in a sector where they experienced competition).
The internet fits in that middle group. Lots of large private networks were built around the same time - but they didn't take off like the internet.
That's pretty strong evidence right there that the internet would have happened anyway.
Designing the technology was not the hard part, in fact some of those large privately owned networks had technology that was, arguably, far more advanced than the internet technology at the time. Yet they didn't become the internet - because to BE an internet you needed a hands-off approach, and a willingness to let everybody use it and evolve it and expand it in all sorts of ways without trying to make money out of them all. A central controller or owner would have prevented it from succeeding. The internet was the exact OPPOSITE of a tragedy of the commons - it was a technology that couldn't happen UNLESS it was a commons.
Again doesn't require public funding to do that.
Really, what is the point of claiming that one needs public funding to have an internet? We conveniently can't have a pure counterexample due to the prevalence of promiscuous government spending. It also ignores the variety and extent of private networks that were being developed at the time, some which became part of the internet which as I already noted is a strong indication to the contrary. It's a variation of the "a few drops dirty the ocean" argument. Government spending is so prevalent that anything can be tainted with it. For example, you then went on to claim that public funding was instrumental to the development of Linux merely because Linus Torvalds, the founder of Linux had a free college education in Finland.
My view on such things is that when you uncritically support public spending because the internet (computers, lasers, etc), you're opening the door to all sorts of waste and harms from unaccountable public spending simply because you aren't paying attention. In particular, we have a variety of massive projects that don't do useful things, like $400 billion on a poor jet fighter or $100 billion for a space station that barely does science. Or trillions spent across the developed world to transfer wealth from working people who need it to elderly who don't.