Hard to know what sits behind the buttons and switches. In all the previous US manned spacecraft you could trace paths right back to the devices being controlled. But the most recent of those was the Shuttle.
A modern car runs just about every driver control over CAN Bus, and just about every device is controlled over CAN or Flexray.
So from the standpoint of the various computers running the show it doesn’t matter where the input comes from. Manufacturers cheerfully remove physical controls to save money. In the limit you end up with a Tesla, where prior to the release of the latest iteration of the model 3 rumours were that even indicator stalks would vanish.
The counterpoint is an argument about user interfaces and the need to have clear and positive identification of controls. In aircraft this is done with some deliberation. Controls for different functions should be separated, and if you can, distinct in form. In an emergency, finding the right control in a hurry, and with error, may be critical. Don’t shut-down the good engine.
OTOH, look at the sea of identical switches in the Apollo CM and work out if you could set SCE to Aux when it mattered. (Hint.)
(Pics link to Heroicrelics.org - which really is a lot of fun to visit.)
Setting SCE to Aux exemplifies the value of exactly these controls. The switch directly selected the power source of the signal conditioning equipment to auxiliary power. These was no intermediate computer, just wires. The spacecraft were designed with multiple paths to do just about everything. There were a lot of such workarounds used in anger to route power in odd ways to route around faults. Especially in, but not limited to, Apollo 13.
Boeing are a company with long roots in aviation. And despite the modern ills have something of a reputation for conservativeness. Thus the question that comes to mind is what a lot of the switches in Starliner control. Are they just inputs to software, or are they in the paths controlling the devices.
This comes down to how much control the astronauts/passengers have over the systems. In the face of problems or outright failure, can they do useful stuff to work around problems by reconfiguring stuff that. Or are they dependent upon external control?
It might be noted that even the Apollo spacecraft could be controlled from the ground. By the simple expedient of having a data link that could push the buttons on the Apollo Guidance Computer. (Whether it interfaced via the DSKY or some other path I’m not sure.) But if the spacecraft suffered a fault that required resetting the various configuration switches, Mission Control would be out of luck.
Nowadays computers are a vastly different question, and reliability comes in somewhat different forms. So there is a lot of progress that has been made. We have a lot of unmanned spacecraft doing amazing duty even in the face a serious problems. But we usually have the luxury of time. Less so with fleshy critters aboard.
So, we might then ask, where is the line drawn in the new spacecraft? Enquiring minds and all that.